''•/"'t^i-^ 



/, * •. V n ^ 0> 









A^^• 



•^ 



■V "C 



ci-. 



/ O' s . 



li//. 



0^ 



.-j.^^ 






x^^' '^>>. 



\ 1 fl '-^ 






^•^^ "'^^ 









ri': '^-^' -^A; 



^^\v 



^. 






>^ c- 



■^^. 



,x^^' 



:<«,'?' 



^- V 






%■ 






<J> 









.0- c/^ 



. 'ff^^<.. 



■^/ 



.^^ '^h 



A^ 



.'f' 






^. 



> 



V- V" 



Oo 



^;>:^ 



x^ -^ 






1^.^, 



'.. -'c- 



vfe^--- >v.. X 






^V'^ ^^ 




r» 



OO 






I ^ 




^cH^^v,,;^. 






\-' 



V) s 



■\^ 



aX^' -. 




'^:..<^' :.i^ 






V 1 e 



* ''o 



. "^ f. 



■",^'^..\^\ 



>- V' 






^^ -^c^. 









,^;J'^.- 



^/ C' 






V' ^ 






^ "^iS^^ 



-4 0^1 



OC' 



^0^ . 



^V^ 









V ■/>. 



^0 O. 



.^ 






ci- 





a; 


^ -^^ 


-^ 








0^. ^ 


c ^ ^. ^^ 


- 


^^5^'- 


oo^ 


.;j 




o^ %^, 


^ 


^ 






'<f ,<v 



i: 






.0^. 



>^^ ■"> 






>, "/-. '^^' 






'/, 'C' 



.^•^' ■". 



/>. 




FHrOJvh by Cwtia Sc RaxdnJcs 



THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 



OP 



PHRENOLOGY 



ARE THE 



ONLY PRINCIPLES 

CAPABLE OF BEINO RECONCILED WITH THE IMMATERIALITY 

AND IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



BY 

JAMES C. L. CAESON, M.D. 



•* > ^* , i^ « , J- t> ) , t 9 > C 



*- i -i^ J 






' 5 > 3 ^ D J J 



LONDON: 
HOULSTOX & WEIGHT, PATEENOSTEE EOW. 

1868, 






EDINBURGH : 
PRINTED BY BALLANTVNE AND COMPANY, 
PAUL'S WORK. 



\0Z5-l 



^02. 



e •• I • • • 



• • • • • 



.•• .♦. •*: 

••• ••• ••( 



•.:* 



•? •' 



• I • • • 



PREFACE. 



At the risk of being considered somewhat egotisti- 
cal, I shall detail the history of my connexion with 
Phrenology. My medical education was commenced 
at Trinity College, Dublin, early in 1833. Towards 
the end of that year, it was arranged to take out 
Anatomical Dissections under Dr Power, who was 
highly spoken of as a lecturer at the Richmond 
School of Medicine. I repaired to his class-room, 
and there heard the first lecture on Anatomy I ever 
listened to. His subject was the Human Brain. 
There was a brain on the table, but the description 
he gave of it was quite unintelligible to me. He 
sliced it away from above downwards after the 
orthodox anatomical method. His descriptions of 
the different sections, as he used the scalpel, were 
very minute ; but as he sliced away portion after 
portion he always took care to tell us that the use 
of this part, and this part, and this part, was not 
known. The whole affair appeared such a farce 
that I had a strong idea of giving up the profession. 



IV PREFACE. 

I thouglit if anatomy were all like this, it would 
hardly be possible to learn it, as there was no 
apparent system or design in it ; and even if it 
could be learned, it would be of no practical use. 
Dr Power appeared to be by nature an able and 
accomplished lecturer, and therefore it was evident 
the defect lay in his subject and not in himself. 
What, then, was to be done ? Before coming to a 
final determination, I strolled into another school, 
and there heard a lecture from Hargrave on the 
Muscles of the Human Body. It was followed by 
another from Bevan on the same subject. I was so 
thoroughly delighted with the descriptions given of 
the muscular system that I at once put down my 
name on the list of pupils. I became such an 
enthusiastic anatomist that I usually spent six hours 
a day in the dissecting-room and anatomical theatre. 
During the whole course of my anatomical studies 
in Dublin, however, I carefully avoided dissecting 
the brain. All I heard about it seemed perfect 
jargon, and therefore it was a very uninteresting 
subject. Indeed, no student seemed to trouble him- 
self about it beyond the necessary process of cram- 
ming himself with technicalities to enable him to 
pass the examinations. This was the necessary 
result of the stupid method of dissection adopted by 
anatomists. Although Gall and Spurzheim, at that 



PEEFACE. V 

time, had been engaged for more than thirty years 
in dissecting the brain after the method of its 
structural development from below upwards, I never 
saw the dissection performed on their plan. The 
old method alone was required to be known, as it 
was the one adopted at the examinations for Degrees 
and Diplomas at the different Universities and Col- 
leges over the Empire. This is a truly marvellous 
and most disgraceful fact. It shows that corporate 
bodies will make improvements only when they are 
forced upon them from without. 

In 1836, I attended lectures on Physiology at the 
University of Glasgow. The physiology of the brain 
was dwelt on at considerable length, and the struc- 
ture of the organ, as traced from below upwards, 
was demonstrated in the simplest and most beauti- 
ful manner by the use of plates which were said to 
be founded on a plan of dissection originally in- 
vented by Heil, but which I now know was really 
adopted by Reil from Gall and Spurzheim. This 
plan of tracing the anatomy of the brain was quite 
new to me, as I had never seen anything of the 
kind in Dublin. All now seemed so simple, beauti- 
ful, and perfectly intelligible, that I became a great 
admirer of Eeil. Matters had so far changed since 
leaving Dublin, that the brain became by far the 
most fascinating portion of anatomy to me. I had 



VI PREFACE. 

not the slightest difficulty in mastering its structural 
development. At this juncture, the papers an- 
nounced that Mr George Combe had arrived in 
Glasgow to deliver a course of lectures on Phren- 
ology. I was about to attend the class when the 
Physiological Professor stated from the chair that he 
would give us four lectures on Phrenology. This 
had the effect of stopping me from going to hear Mr 
Combe. I listened most attentively to the Pro- 
fessor's lectures, which were directly opposed to the 
system of Gall, but they appeared extremely unsatis- 
factory. The objections urged against Phrenology 
were so frivolous that they only served to awaken 
my desire for information on the subject. At the 
conclusion of the course, I told the Professor that I 
never liked to decide on any subject without hearing 
both sides of the question, and therefore I would be 
obliged if he would give me the name of the best 
work he had read in favour of Phrenology, in order 
that I might obtain a copy of it. He said he 
thought Gall and Spurzheim's works would likely be 
the best, but he could give me very little informa- 
tion about them, as he had not read them. This 
struck me with utter amazement. 1 could not 
understand how any man could bring himself to 
deliver four lectures against Phrenology without 
having first made himself well acquainted with the 



PREFACE. Vll 

best works in its favour. I at once lost all confi- 
dence in Ms judgment, and regretted exceedingly that 
I had missed the opportunity of hearing Mr Combe. 
It also struck me as a remarkable fact that Reil's 
plan of dissecting the brain after its structural 
development should be taught by the use of plates 
in the Physiological class-room, and that I should 
never have seen such a mode of dissection practised 
in the Anatomical theatres of either Dublin or Glas- 
gow. The plan seemed so plain and simple that it 
was difficult to understand why it was kept in the 
dark. All appeared mysterious. I never heard 
even a hint, at that time, that this plan of dissec- 
tion, which was directly attributed to Reil, was 
really the original invention of Gall and Spurzheim, 
and no more belonged to Eeil than to me. The 
reader will find this point more particularly alluded 
to at the 129th and the 432d pages of this work. 

Before leaving Glasgow, I was spending an even- 
ing with a scientific friend. A gentleman, whose 
name I know not, sat beside me at the supper-table. 
He was well versed in Phrenology, and told me some 
of the most important features of my own character. 
This made a deep impression upon my mind, but 1 
was so overwhelmed with professional work that I 
could not give any further attention to the subject. 
Matters remained pretty much in this position till 



Vlll PBEFACE. 

the year 1840, when a Polish exile came to Cole- 
raine to practise Phrenology. Being determined to 
take advantage of his visit to examine the science, 
I spent all the time I could command in his room«. 
The public were flocking to him in great numbers, 
and this gave me an opportunity of seeing many 
parties examined, with whose characters I was well 
acquainted. The delineations were so extremely 
accurate that. I could no more doubt the truth of the 
science than I could doubt my own existence. If, 
under the circumstances in which I was placed, I 
had denied the truth of Phrenology, I must of neces- 
sity have admitted the inspiration of the practitioner. 
To have remained sceptical would have been to act 
the part of a fool. I became a very willing disciple, 
and took every advantage of the opportunities pre- 
sented, so as to become as well versed as possible in 
the practical department of the science. 

In the spring of 1842, I delivered a course of 
lectures on Phrenology for the benefit of the funds 
of the Coleraine Mechanics' Institute. The prepara- 
tion of these lectures brought me to the considera- 
tion of the question of materialism. I had not 
then the slightest doubt, from practical observation, 
that the principles of Phrenology were founded in 
\ nature, and therefore I was not ashamed to acknow- 

ledge them, or afraid of their consequences. Al- 



PREFACE. IX 

tliough I could not then clearly see my way on the 
question of materialism, I had no fear whatever on 
the subject. I knew God could not contradict 
Himself, and felt certain that truth would always 
square with truth. To think otherwise would be 
to doubt the wisdom and perfection of God. As I 
knew from the infallible words of inspiration that 
man was endowed with an immaterial and immortal 
principle, I felt absolutely certain that Phrenology, 
if rightly understood, could never contradict Eevela- 
tion on this point. On the contrary, I had no 
doubt that Phrenology and Revelation, both being 
true, would one day be squared with each other. 
This was just the point at which I was obliged to 
stop in the year 1842. My mind, however, could 
not rest contented here, and therefore I reverted 
to the subject in 1843. Having read Mr Combe's 
observations on materialism, I was by no means 
satisfied with them. They appeared entirely in- 
consistent with proper views of Christianity. He 
says, '' The solution of this question (materialism) 
is not only unimportant, but impossible." Now, 
although Mr Combe admits the existence of mind, 
I could not agree with him in thinking that it is a 
matter of no importance to determine whether or not 
man possesses a principle within him which, in its 
own nature, is immaterial^ and consequently im- 



X PREFACE. 

mortal unless directly annihilated by the Almighty. 
Neither could I subscribe to Mr Combe's argument 
that it is of no importance whether God has made a 
brain to think or a mind to think, because He could 
make the one immortal as readily as the other. 
This is a complete begging of the question. The 
point for investigation is not, What could God do ? 
but, What has He done '? In place of fruitlessly 
speculating on what God could make, we ought to 
acquaint ourselves, as far as possible, with what He 
has made. This is the point. If there be no 
thinking principle besides the brain, immortality, 
under present circumstances, is only a dream, be- 
cause we know for a certainty that the brain dies, 
corrupts, and dwindles into dust. Mr Combe asserts 
that it is impossible to solve this question of ma- 
terialism. Why is it impossible ? Because, says 
he, '' All our knowledge must be derived from 
either consciousness or observation, and as no other 
modes of arriving at certain knowledge are open to 
man, the solution of this question appears to be 
placed completely beyond his reach." This state- 
ment is specially objectionable. It practically 
ignores the existence of Kevelation, and directly 
excludes it as a mode of conveying certain know- 
ledge to man. Observation is indeed the only sure 
foundation for physical science ; but this is very 



PEEFACE. XI 

different from saying that observation and reflection 
on consciousness are tlie only possible channels of 
knowledge. Mr Combe's statement excludes Ke- 
velation, not only as a mode of receiving informa- 
tion regarding the existence, nature, and destiny of 
the human soul, but also as a mode of receiving 
information regarding the existence of God, a future 
state, and everything else. If, as he asserts, there 
be no other mode of arriving at certain knowledge 
open to man than consciousness and observation, as 
a matter of course Eevelation is out of the question, 
because it cannot be brought in under either of these 
heads. On this principle, we could not derive 
certain knowledge from it on any subject. Nay, 
more, on his own principles, Mr Combe cannot 
consistently admit the existence of mind at all. 
He has excluded Revelation as a source of informa- 
tion j he says, '^ Consciousness gives us no informa- 
tion whether God, in creating man, was pleased to 
invest his material organs with the property of 
thought, or to infuse into him a portion of imma- 
terial fire ; " and in regard to observation, he re- 
marks, " Xo eye can penetrate the integuments of 
the head to obtain a view of the operations per- 
formed in the brain." Where, then, can he get any 
proof of the existence of mind ? JSTowhere. If he 
believed in the existence of mind, according to his 



Xll PREFACE. 

own principles, he believed without evidence. It 
is truly surprising to find that a man of Mr Combe's 
perspicacity should be so far overseen as not to ob- 
serve that the arguments he uses in reference to 
the nature of mind are equally applicable as to its 
very existence. When a man forsakes the paths of 
truth he cannot square with himself. It is greatly 
to be regretted that Mr Combe held the opinions 
which he did on this and kindred subjects, as the 
progress of Phrenology has been immensely re- 
tarded by their promulgation. They have made 
the religious public look with extreme suspicion on 
the entire question. This is hardly to be wondered 
at. But still the public cannot be justified for re- 
jecting Phrenology on such grounds, because the 
obnoxious sentiments are not, in any instance, neces- 
sarily Phrenological, but result from Mr Combe's 
peculiar views. With all my respect for Mr Combe, 
I would dissent as strenuously from his insidious, 
and therefore highly dangerous, religious opinions, 
as I would from the barefaced materialism of Dr 
EUiotson and Sir William Lawrence. 

If Phrenologists were to say that we must look 
to Revelation, and not to Phrenology, or to any 
other physical science, for information regarding 
the existence and nature of the soul, no person 
could find fault, because no sensible man would 



PREFACE. XI 11 

expect Phrenology to be responsible for demonstrat- 
ing the existence and immateriality of the soul, just 
because this is not within its province, but belongs 
specially to the domain of Eevelation. The exist- 
ence, immateriality, and immortality of the soul 
having been established from Scripture, however, it 
then fakly devolves on the Phrenologist to show 
that his science is perfectly compatible with this 
doctrine of Revelation. This view of the case has 
been met by Gall on the principle that his doctrines 
are no more open to the charge of materialism than 
are those of his neighbours, inasmuch as he holds that 
the organs of the brain bear the same relationship 
to the mind that the eye and the ear do. Conse- 
quently, if he is a materialist, all others must be the 
same. This is both a legitimate and sufficient 
line of defence. It occurred to me, however, when 
pondering on the subject in the year 1843, that the 
argument was capable of being driven a great deal 
further ; and hence in my second course of lectures 
in Coleraine, as well as in those I delivered in Dublin 
in 1851, I took the bold step of turning the tables 
on my opponents, and of thus carrying the battle 
into the enemy's country. I undertook to prove 
that the Phrenologist, so far from being necessarily 
a materialist, is the only man who can properly and 
consistently avoid materialism. This surely is a 



XIV PREFACE. 

matter of overwhelming importance. How far I 
have succeeded in my onerous task, must be left to 
the judgment of my readers. If the arguments 
adduced can stand the test of criticism, I shall have 
the satisfaction of knowing that I have removed 
Phrenology far from the field of materialism, and 
placed it, as the only science which can unravel the 
nature of man, in direct harmony with the profes- 
sion of what is known by the title of Evangelical 
Christianity. 

This work beino- confined to the fundamental 
principles of Phrenology, I hope, at some future 
period, to be able to command suflStcient time to 
write a volume on the position, appearance, and 
functions of the various organs of which the brain 
is composed. 

CoLERAiNE, Ireland, 1868. 



CONTENTS, 



PHRENOLOGY, 

THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH, 
PROGRESS OF PHREXOLOGT, 
UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY, 
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS, . 
IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 
IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 
INFLUENCE OF AGE, 
SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY, 
TEMPERAMENT, •. 
HEALTH OF THE BRAIN, . 
EFFECTS OF EXERCISE, . 
THE BRAIN AND SKULL, . 
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN, 



1 

2 

21 
24 
46 
114 
211 
210 
315 
345 
363 
366 
410 
454 



PHRENOLOGY. 



If I had not the most decided and well-grounded con- 
viction of the truth, and practical utility, of Phrenology, 
I could not possibly be induced to undertake its advo- 
cacy. The experimental knowledge which I have of 
the science, however, is such as to rivet conviction on 
my own mind, and, at the same time, imbue me with 
an irresistible desire for prosecuting its study, in order 
that I^may obtain correct and satisfactory views on 
every point connected with mental philosophy. Al- 
though I maintain that the truths which Phrenology 
has revealed are of more importance in the various 
concerns of life, than those which have yet been dis- 
covered in any other branch of science, and also that 
the majority of mankind are capable of acquiring a 
highly useful amount of information on the subject, 
I am still free to confess that it is a difficult matter 
to become a good practical and scientific phrenologist. 
Such a condition can be arrived at only by an exten- 
sive course of study and a patient investigation of 



Ji PHRENOLOGY. 

nature. When the celebrated Sir Joshua Keynolds 
visited Italy, and gazed for the first time on the im- 
mortal works of Eaphael and Michael Angelo, he could 
discover nothing extraordinary ; but a closer inspec- 
tion, and a more accurate examination, began to unfold 
their beauties, and he then saw they were really in- 
imitable. So is it with Phrenology. To the super- 
ficial observer it may appear trifling and unimportant ; 
but the patient and scientific inquirer will find, that it 
opens to his view a rich and extensive field, which is 
adorned with all the majesty, and yet beautiful sim- 
plicity, of nature ; that it contains precious metals 
which must be sought for before they are obtained, 
but which, when once discovered, will more than 
compensate for the toil and expense of the investi- 
gation. 

' THE KECEPTION OF TEUTH. 

In every age, prejudice, ignorance, and interest have 
formed a barrier to the reception of truth. There are 
few men capable of throwing overboard, all at once, 
those opinions which have been impressed on their 
minds from their earliest infancy, and adopting new 
ones, no matter how strong soever the evidence may 
be on which the novel doctrines depend. ** There is 
nothing more difficult," says Dr Stokes, in his Lec- 
tures on Fever ^ " than for a man who has been edu- 



THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. 3 

cated in a particular doctrine to free himself from 
it, even though he has found it to be wrong. There 
is nothing more difficult than to unlearn.^^ "Who 
ever," observes Locke, ^'bj the most cogent argu- 
ments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself at 
once of all his old opinions and pretensions to know- 
ledge and learning, which with hard study he hath 
all his time been labouring for, and turn himself out 
stark naked in quest of fresh notions ? All the argu- 
ments that can be used will be as little able to prevail 
as the wind did with the traveller to part with his 
cloak, which he held only the faster." 

Incredible as it may appear, it is nevertheless true^ 
that even ocular demonstration has sometimes been 
insufficient for the removal of preconceived ideas. 
Those who have read Brewster's Life of Galileo are 
aware that Aristotle taught that all bodies, in falling 
to the earth, had a velocity exactly in proportion to 
their own weight, so that the heaviest would invariably 
touch the ground first, provided they all had an equal 
start. Galileo, however, denied this principle, and main- 
tained that all bodies would fall through the same space 
exactly in the same time, without any regard to their 
weight, provided only they were not retarded by the 
resistance of the atmosphere. He undertook to prove 
the correctness of his opinions by dropping bodies of 
different weights, at the same time, in the presence of 
the disciples of Aristotle, from the tower of Pisa. His 



4 PHRENOLOGY. ^| 

experiments were so entirely successful that they called 
forth " the enthusiastic admiration of an immense con- 
course of public spectators who were present to wit- 
ness them ; but it was those who claimed the name 
of Philosophers that most bitterly opposed him." 
Yes, the Philosophers, — the Philosophers, —the Philo- 
sophers, opposed him ! That they did ! The Aristo- 
telians could not deny the success of his practical 
demonstrations ; but they ascribed it to chance, or 
some unknown cause, and would not allow the opinions 
of their master to be upset, even by the practical and 
successful experiments which were performed before 
their own eyes ! ! They were exactly like the Anti- 
phrenologists, who call the practical delineations of 
character, the accuracy of which they cannot dispute, 
^* a good guess." The one class of philosophers is just 
about as wise as the other. Again, Bostock informs 
us that the disciples of Galen, when they saw his 
anatomical theories overturned by dissections of the 
human body, chose rather to affirm that the human 
body had undergone a permanent change in its ana- 
tomical structure, than admit that Galen could have 
committed an error. To such parties, demonstrative 
proof could be of no use ; and I am sorry to say their 
obstinate resistance to practical evidence has been 
imitated in numerous instances, in our own genera- 
tion, by the followers of Sir William Hamilton and 
Lord Jeffrey. 



THE RECEPTION OF TEUTH. 5 

The real Philosoplier is always prepared to receive 
truth, and reject error, without the slightest regard 
to the consequences which may ensue. With him, it 
is not of the least importance whether the alleged 
facts were produced yesterday, or have been known 
for a thousand years ; whether they were discovered 
by a man of eminence, or by a person unknown to 
literature or fame. The only question is, Are they 
really facts ? If they are, he will at once receive them ; 
but if they are not, he will unhesitatingly reject them. 
He will never go to the side of either scepticism or 
credulity, because he knows the one is as unphiloso- 
phical as the other. " Everywhere," observes Macaulay 
in his History of England, " there is a class of men who 
cling with fondness to what is ancient, and who, even 
when convinced by overpowering reasons, that inno- 
vation would be beneficial, consent to it with many 
misgivings and forebodings. We find also everywhere 
another class of men, sanguine in hope, bold in specu- 
lation, and disposed to give every change credit for 
being an improvement. In the sentiments of both 
classes there is something to approve. But of both 
the best specimens will be found not far from the 
common frontier. The extreme section of the one 
class consists of bigoted dotards : the extreme section 
of the other consists of shallow and reckless empirics." 
" I am accustomed," says Professor Mittermaier of 
Heidelberg, " neither to surrender myself blindly and 



6 PHRENOLOGY. ^ ^X 

instantaneously to new ideas and systems, nor to re- 
ject them from prejudice, merely because they are new. 
I try all things ; and every inquiry which has for its 
object a more accurate knowledge of the nature of 
man, or which can contribute to the progress of hu- 
manity, is important in my estimation." Sentiments 
such as these must commend themselves to every man 
who is possessed of a well-balanced brain. They ought 
to be engraved on our memory. " I have always con- 
sidered,^' remarks a sensible newspaper writer, " that 
there can be no greater proof of an enlightened and 
really cultivated mind than a readiness to acknowledge 
error. Every man is liable to inaccuracy ; but that 
man frees himself from a load of difficulties who has 
the generosity to admit his imperfections. Many men 
have lost the greater part of their days in defending 
opinions which were maintained only because they 
had once been expressed, and because they were want- 
ing in that moral courage which is necessary to confess 
the truth, and retrieve the past. The pride which pre- 
vents our acknowledging truth, wherever it is to be 
found, can only end in humiliation ; real indepen- 
dence, which is the best of all pride, can only exist 
in the fearless assertion of what we conscientiously 
conceive to be right." ^' What has always made me 
easy," says Dr Priestley, ^' in any controversy in which 
I have been engaged, has been my fixed resolution 
frankly to acknowledge any mistake that I might per- 



THE EECEPTION OF TRUTH. 7 

ceive I had fallen into." '' He that opposes his own 
judgment against the consent of the times," says De 
Foe, " ought to be backed with unanswerable truths ; 
and he that has truth on his side is a fool, as well as 
a coward, if he is afraid to own it because of the cur- 
rency or multitude of other men's opinions." 

Dr Macnish has correctly asserted " that persecution 
is the reward of innovation in whatever form it ap- 
pears.'^ The truth of this statement is borne out to 
the fullest extent by examples from every source. The 
only difficulty lies in the selection. Pythagoras, we 
are informed, was banished from Athens, and Anexa- 
goras imprisoned, on account of their new opinions. 
The Abderites considered Democritus insane, because 
he attempted to discover the cause of madness by dis- 
section ; and Socrates was obliged to drink the poisonous 
juice of hemlock for having attempted to prove the 
unity of God, (Gall's Works.) When Galileo, having 
invented a telescope, by which bodies invisible to the 
naked eye are brought into view, discovered the satel- 
lites of Jupiter and the inequalities on the surface of 
the moon, and when he further affirmed the daily 
motion of the earth, he was brought before the Inqui- 
sition and cast into a dungeon, without the slightest 
regard to his old age and much infirmity, {Life of 
Galileo.) Prinella was beat with rods for saying the 
stars would not fall ; and Camparella was seven times 
tortured for asserting there was a multitude of 



8 PHRENOLOGY. 

worlds, (Dr Dill's Ireland) When Paracelsus intro- 
duced the use of antimony as a medicine, he was per- 
secuted for the innovation, and the French Parliament 
made it penal to prescribe it. Even in our own country 
the same spirit of persecution, and bitter opposition to 
truth, have been frequently manifested. Sir Isaac 
Newton was most violently opposed for his discovery 
of the composition of light. " Though," as Professor 
Piayfair observes, " it was not a theory or system of 
opinions, but the generalisation of facts made known 
by experiments, and though it was brought forward 
in a most simple and unpretending form, a host of 
enemies appeared, each eager to obtain the unfortunate 
pre-eminence of being the first to attack conclusions 
which the unanimous voice of posterity was to con- 
firm," His opinions made such little progress in other 
countries that he had not more than twenty followers 
on the Continent, we are told, at the end of forty years 
after the publication of the Principia. " The slow 
progress," says Voltaire, " of truths so simple, irrefrag- 
able, and beautiful, explaining an infinity of phenomena 
with such ease, shows, in a striking light, how educa- 
tion and habit triumph over reason, and how the ad- 
vance of knowledge is impeded by the vassalage of 
mind to established opinions." I cannot understand 
how Dr Eoget, having regard to such well-known facts, 
could say, when writing against Phrenology about 
forty years after its discovery, that if it " had been a 



THE EECEPTION OF TEUTH. 9 

real science, like that of Chemistrj, and other branches 
of Natural Philosophy, founded on uniform and un- 
questionable evidence, it could not have failed by this 
time of being generally recognised as true," (Eoget's 
Physiology and Phrenology , vol. i. p. 92.) If there was 
any good in Dr Eoget's argument, it would tell with far 
greater force against Sir Isaac Newton than against 
Dr Gall. 

In this country, we have also to blush for the treat- 
ment received by the illustrious and immortal Harvey, 
who was ridiculed and persecuted by almost all his 
learned contemporaries, and, by the consequent loss of 
his practice, was reduced to comparative poverty, 
simply because he made the grand discovery of the 
general circulation of the blood. To this day, even, 
his remains have been allowed to lie in their ignoble 
position in a village graveyard in Essex, whilst costly 
monuments have been erected to men who were a 
disgrace to humanity. Well might the editor of the 
London Medical Times and Gazette exclaim, "In no 
country but England would the remains of the dis- 
coverer of the circulation of the blood have been left 
to repose so long in obscurity." 

One of the most interesting books, in its own depart- 
ment, I have ever read, is the Life of George Stephen- 
son, by Samuel Smiles. It contains an uninterrupted 
illustration of the struggles of genius and science 
against everything which is usually called great and 



10 PHRENOLOGY. ^| 

learned in the world. It places thousands of our 
countrymen in everlasting disgrace. When the cir- 
cumstances in which he was placed are taken into con- 
sideration, it is very questionable if George Stephenson 
ever had a superior in mechanical genius. He com- 
menced life by working for twopence a day, and learned 
to read at eighteen years of age. He had no money ; 
little patronage ; a poor education ; no scientific books ; 
no philosophical instruments ; no skilled artisans to 
assist him ; and yet, by the mighty power of his own 
genius, he raised himself to the highest pitch of emin- 
ence. He not only invented the safety lamp, but he 
also invented the Locomotive Steam Engine, and the 
entire of our present railway system. He will get full 
credit for all this now ; but how was he treated at the 
time he made his great discoveries ? He was just 
ridiculed, abused, despised, and violently opposed by 
learned engineers, men of science, eminent lawyers, 
the Houses of Lords and Commons, and, in short, with 
a few noble exceptions, by all the great men in the 
realm. Still he had truth on his side, and ultimately 
conquered all opposition. The name of Sir Humphrey 
Davy has been very generally connected with the safety 
lamp ; and there is no question he did invent a very 
elegant, but by no means the safest, lamp, without any 
extraneous assistance. For this he should get every 
credit. But that is no reason why another should be 
robbed of the merit which is his due. No honest man 



THE EECEPTION OF TRUTH. 1 1 

could read the history of the facts, with their dates, 
as given in detail by Mr Smiles, without coming to the 
inevitable conclusion that a safety lamp, on the same 
principle as Sir Humphrey Davy^s, was invented by 
George Stephenson, and that Stephenson's lamp was 
in use for some time before ever Davy's was heard of. 
These facts are unquestionable. But still Dr Paris, 
the learned biographer of Davy, has thought proper to 
say, " It will hereafter be scarcely believed that an 
invention so eminently scientific, and which could 
never have been derived but from the sterling treasury 
of science, should have been claimed on behalf of an 
engine-wright of Killingworth, of the name of Stephen- 
son — a person not even possessing a knowledge of the 
elements of Chemistry." Here Dr Paris, who was one 
of the most polished members of the College of Physi- 
cians, sets out with the a pi^iori principle that a dis- 
covery of this description could be made only by one 
who was learned in the doctrines of the schools. The 
facts, however, are directly against him ; but what 
chance have the facts at the hands of men who con- 
sider that nothing great could originate except at the 
fountains of learning. "What chance," says Mr Smiles, 
" had the unknown workman of Killingworth with so 
distinguished a competitor as Sir Humphrey Davy 1 
The one was as yet but a colliery engine-wright, scarce 
raised above the manual-labour class, without chemical 
knowledge or literary culture, pursuing his experiments 



12 PHRENOLOGY. 

in obscurity, with a view only to usefulness ; the other 
was the scientific prodigy of his day, the pet of the 
Royal Society, the favourite of princes, the most bril- 
liant of lecturers, and the most popular of philoso- 
phers." The history of Stephenson shows very plainly 
that he had no chance against such men as Sir Hum- 
phrey Davy, till the prodigious results of his discovery 
of the Locomotive Steam Engine, and of his unparal- 
leled railway engineering capabilities, placed him in 
such a position that those who formerly despised him 
were glad to take advantage of his counsel, and felt 
honoured by his acquaintance. It would, indeed, be 
well for the world now if they could learn a practical 
lesson from, and be warned by, the conduct of those 
who gave such determined opposition to the " Engine- 
wright of Killingworth, of the name of Stephenson." 

When the Duke of Bridge water wished to make a 
canal near Manchester, he was quite perplexed to know 
how he could carry it across the river Irwell. Brind- 
ley, the millwright, who was in the duke's employ- 
ment, suggested the plan of making an aqueduct over 
the Irwell, near Barton Bridge. As the idea of carry- 
ing one water across another in this w^ay had never 
before been heard of, it was considered to be an insane 
project. The duke himself was so sceptical on the 
subject that he called in an engineer of great eminence 
to examine the matter, and give his opinion. Those 
who have full confidence in antiquated lore, and high 



THE RECEPTION OF TEUTH. 13 

scientific pretensions, would now expect, of course, that 
a decision bordering on infallibility would be given. 
Well, what was the result ? " I have often," said this 
great engineer, " heard of castles in the air, but never 
before was shown where any of them were to be 
erected." Notwithstanding this adverse opinion from 
the recognised source of authority, the duke, like a 
wise man, gave the millwright leave to proceed. On 
the 17th July 1761, {Chambers^ s Journal,) the aque- 
duct was ready for the admission of the water. Poor 
Brindley, whose judgment was now placed in direct 
opposition to that of the great engineer, was so anxious 
about the result that he ran away as the water was 
being admitted. His success, however, was complete. 
The experiment proved him to be a man of practical 
sense ; whilst the learned engineer, who condemned 
the project, was shown to be an ignorant, self-conceited 
creature, who was incapable of appreciating anything 
which did not originate with a person as great as him- 
self. Alas ! what multitudes of followers has this 
great engineer in the present day ! The question re- 
garding Phrenology frequently is not. Is it practically 
true ? But, How will it square with our favourite 
theories ? Into what college has it been admitted ? 
What great men have believed the report ? 

In 1693, Dr Groenvelt used cantharides internally 
for dropsy. So soon as this became known, he was 
committed to Newgate by warrant of — some illiterate 



14 PHRENOLOGY. 

fellow, of course — no, but actually by warrant of the 
President of the College of Physicians ! ! , The College 
of Physicians must also bear the credit of having ridi- 
culed, persecuted, and oppressed the immortal Jenner, 
{Chambers's Journal^ vol. i. New Series,) on account of 
his discovery of vaccination, — a discovery which now 
saves the lives of more than 500,000 persons annually 
in Europe alone, (Sir J. Y. Simpson's Obstetrics^ vol. ii. ;) 
but the application of which, on its introduction to the 
world, Professor Monro, of the Edinburgh University, 
said " should be prohibited by Act of Parliament." 
How truly contemptible do such men now appear in our 
eyes ! They are a disgrace to their race. " The lancet 
of Jenner," says Sir J. Y. Simpson, " has saved more 
lives than the sword of Napoleon destroyed. On the 
devastating European wars England lavished millions 
of money, and freely bestowed honours, peerages, and 
heavy annual pensions upon the soldiers who were 
most successful in fighting her battles, and destroying 
their fellow-men ; but she grudgingly rewarded Jenner 
with thirty thousand pounds" for saving the lives of a 
large number of her subjects. When Jenner intro- 
duced his favourite topic at the Medical Club, he was 
threatened with expulsion, and the subject was de- 
nounced as a nuisance. The opposition, however, did 
not stop here, as he was actually prevented from pub- 
lishing the results of his experiments in The Trans- 
actions of the Royal Society 1 1 {Life of Jenner^ In 



THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. 13 

order to give the Eoyal Society full credit for its de- 
termined and never-ending opposition to truth, I may 
also mention that it would not permit the publication, 
in its Transactions^ of Dr Marshall Hall's early papers 
on his great and extremely important discoveries on 
the nervous system ! ! This conduct is just on 
a par with that of the Faculty of Medicine of 
Paris, who carried their blind opposition to prac- 
tical knowledge so far as to refuse permission to 
Ambrose Parr for the printing of his invaluable 
discovery of the application of ligatures to arteries, 
— a discovery which enabled the surgeon, in the 
amputation of a limb, to arrest the flow of blood by 
the application of a thread to the artery, in place of 
searing the stump over with a red-hot iron, {London 
Medical Gazette, Oct. 5, 1844.) 

Who, after becoming acquainted with these facts, 
could place the slightest confidence in colleges, and 
what is commonly called learned societies, or yet ex- 
pect that they ever could become the real fountains of 
knowledge ? Their history plainly proves that they 
have received truth, at least in their corporate capa- 
city, only when it was absolutely forced on them from 
without. Instead of being, what they ought to be, 
the pioneers, they have been a constant drag on the 
chariot-wheels of truth. They are " beacons moored 
in the stream of time, which serve only to mark the 
rapidity with which the tide of civilisation is flowing 



16 PHRENOLOGY. 

past them." " In proportion," says the learned Arch- 
bishop Whately, " as any branch of study leads to im- 
portant and useful results, in proportion as it gains 
ground in public estimation, in proportion as it tends 
to overthrow prevailing errors, in the same degree it 
may be expected to call forth angry declamation from 
those who are trying to despise what they will not 
learn, and wedded to prejudices which they cannot 
defend. Galileo probably would have escaped perse- 
cution, if his discoveries could have been disproved, 
and his reasonings refuted." 

When we reflect on the various historical facts I 
have already adduced, we could not expect that Phren- 
ology would escape the most determined opposition on 
its first introduction to the world. It would be quite 
unreasonable to imagine it would fare any better than 
the other great discoveries which were promulgated at 
different periods of the history of our race. If it had 
been at once universally received in the ranks of litera- 
ture, we would have had a strong a priori, I might 
almost say an insuperable, reason for doubting its truth. 
On the supposition of its being true, our knowledge of 
previous events would lead us inevitably and imme- 
diately to the conclusion, that it must of necessity 
pass through the fiery ordeal of a bitter persecution. 
Persecution is not an absolute test of truth, because 
error may be, and sometimes is, persecuted. But there 
is this great difference between truth and error, that 



THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. 17 

error generally escapes determined opposition and per- 
secution — truth never does ; error spreads rapidly — 
truth travels slowly ; error has comparatively few re- 
sources, and must come to an end — ^truth is quite in- 
exhaustible, and knows no end. 

On the 9th of January 1802, the Austrian Government 
commanded Dr Gall, the illustrious discoverer of Phren- 
ology, to discontinue his lectures on the functions of 
the brain. As his public expositions were thus authori- 
tatively put an end to, he left Vienna, in company with 
Dr Spurzheim, in the year 1805, and never afterwards 
returned to that benighted region. After having thus 
deprived himself of the comforts of home, and given 
up his professional prospects, in order to prosecute the 
study, and promote the advancement, of his beloved 
science, and thus make known to the world those great 
truths which he considered capable of wielding the 
destinies of nations, he has been loaded with ridicule 
and covered with abuse from almost every quarter. 
Few men have suffered more for their opinions than 
Gall and Spurzheim ; but, armed with a feeling of 
greatness from the mighty power of those truths 
which they taught, they felt they were invincible, 
and therefore were enabled to look with majestic com- 
placency upon all those mortals who thought they 
were elevating themselves in the social scale whilst 
they were opposing and persecuting the discoverers 
and the advocates of some of the noblest laws of crea- 

B 



18 PHKENOLOGY. 

tion. They felt their opponents occupied the position 
of the creature fighting against the works of the Crea- 
tor. They were strong in the unconquerable power 
of truth. 

The late Professor Ucelli was deprived of his chair 
in the University of Florence, and after his death all 
biographical accounts of him were prohibited, merely 
because he professed his belief in Phrenology. Dr 
Ferrarese, of Naples, was called before the Holy Tri- 
bunal for having written in favour of Phrenology, and 
was actually imprisoned for twenty-eight days in the 
year 1 840. Mr George Combe, who visited him, says, 
" He was suspended from his office of Physician in 
Ordinary to the Royal Lunatic Asylum at Aversa, and 
crushed to the earth by every engine of persecution 
^hich bigotry and tyranny, combined, could employ 
against him." 

The advocates of Phrenology could not be corpore- 
ally punished in Great Britain in the nineteenth cen- 
tury ; but they met with a very hot reception in the 
form of ridicule and abuse of every imaginable de- 
scription. A few specimens on this head will suffice 
to exhibit their position. Take the following : — " In 
our opinion, fool and Phrenologist are terms as nearly 
synonymous as can be found in any language. . . . 
These infernal idiots, the Phrenologists." — {Blach- 
wood's Magazine, JSTos. 72 and 76.) " Such ignorant 
and interested quacks as the Craniologist Dr Gall." — 



THE RECEPTION OF TEUTH. 19 

{Quarterly Review,) "A tribe of crazy sciolists, deno* 
minating themselves Craniologists. . . . Visionary 
abortions. . . . This crew." — {The Literary Gazette for 
1823.) " Is there no Arbuthnot now to chastise the 
follies of our Craniologists?" — {Dug aid Stewart, as 
quoted by Sir George S. Mackenzie, Bart.) " Man of 
skulls. . . . Cleverer than most of his tribe. . . . 
These two modern peripatetics, . . . empirics, . . . 
thorough quackery. . . . There is nothing so impos- 
sible in nature, but mountebanks will undertake. . . . 
The suspicion of mala fides is inseparably attached to 
their character. . . . These cunning Craniologers. . . . 
An incoherent rhapsody. . . . Absolute insanity, gross 
ignorance, or the most matchless assurance. . . . The 
writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim can leave no doubt 
as to the real ignorance, the real hypocrisy, and the 
real empiricism of the authors." — {Edinhurgk Review, 
Xo. 49.) " Phrenology is implicit ' atheism — physical 
necessity — materialism." — {Sir William HamiltoUy 
Bart., Professor in the University of Edinburgh.) 
" This bubble. . . . What outrage on common sense, 
on natural laws, on scientific facts, will men not teach 
and men believe ! " — (Editor of The London Medical 
Times and Gazette, December 15, 1860.) 

All I can say is, the language I have quoted is 
worthy of the authors from whom it has emanated. 
The time will yet come when they, in common with 
all our opponents, will be known to posterity chiefly 



20 PHRENOLOGY. 

as tlie blind and ignorant opposers of truth. It be- 
hoves every Phrenologist to assist in handing down 
their names to future generations as the fitting com- 
panions of those who opposed and defamed Galileo, 
Harvey, Newton, and Jenner. They are certainly 
destined to an inglorious immortality, in relation to 
their ungenerous, unfounded, practically ignorant, and 
very ill-natured attacks on Phrenology and its illus- 
trious and honourable founders. The names of Dr 
Gordon, Dr Roget, Sir William Hamilton, Lord Jefirey, 
and Baron Cuvier, must occupy a prominent position 
in the history of that bitter opposition through which 
the science has been forced to pass. The conduct of 
Baron Cuvier was mean and disgusting in the extreme. 
He is said to have allowed his opinions to be so 
far swayed by the virulent observations, adverse to 
Phrenology, which fell from the lips of Bonaparte at 
the levee, that he drew up a report, for the French 
Institute, on the labours of Gall and Spurzheim, in 
direct opposition to the sentiments expressed by him- 
self in private society, and " in a circle which was not 
particularly private." In relation to his conduct in 
this matter, Chenevix is forced to remark that he 
was as much distinguished by " the suppleness of his 
opinions as the versatility of his understanding.'' 
Those who wish for full information on this point, 
will please consult Gall's Works, and Spurzheim's 
Physiognomy, 



PROGRESS OF PHRENOLOGY. 21 



PEOGEESS OF PHEENOLOGY. 

Notwithstanding all the opposition it has had to 
encounter, Phrenology has gathered considerable 
strength, and has been ardently cultivated, or fairly 
received, by a large number of celebrated men both 
at home and abroad. I may just mention the names 
of Mr George Combe ; Dr Andrew Combe ; Sir George 
Mackenzie, Bart. ; Dr Barlow, of Bath ; Dr Brown, of 
Dumfries, (now a Commissioner in Lunacy ;) Sir 
WilHam C. ElHs ; Dr Mackintosh ; Dr Macnish ; Dr 
Conolly, Dr EUiotson, and Dr James Johnson, of Lon- 
don ; Mr Laurence, of London ; Professor Welsh, of 
Edinburgh University ; Professor Caldwell, of America ; 
Dr Hoppe, and Professor Otto, of Copenhagen ; Berze- 
lius, of Stockholm ; Mr Eichard Carmichael, Professor 
Montgomery, Professor Harrison, Sir Henry Marsh, 
Bart., and Dr William Stokes, of Dublin ; Professor 
Ucelli, of Florence ; Corvisart, Eoyer, Bouillaud, An- 
dral, Broussais, Amusat, Blondeau, Cloquet, Sanson, 
Dumoutier, Falret, Ferrus, Fossati, Foville, Yoisin, 
Le Gallois, G. Pinel, Eostan, and Vimont, in France ; 
with an immense host of others in various parts of 
the world, which it would be too tedious to particu- 
larise. Let any persons acquainted with the literature 
of Europe look over these names, — let them remember 
the list contains a Combe, a Conolly, a Johnson, a 



22 PHEENOLOGY. 

Caldwell, a Berzelius, a Carmichael, a Harrison, a 
Stokes, a Gorvisart, an Andral, a Broussais, a Cloquet, 
a Le Gallois, and a Vimont, — and then let them think 
of applying to them such language as I have already- 
quoted from Blackwood, The Quarterly Review^ The 
Literary Gazette, Dugald Stewart, Sir William Hamil- 
ton, The Edinburgh Review^ and The London Medical 
Gazette, and I ask, Is it not so truly ridiculous as to 
be beneath contempt ? 

The mode of Vimont's conversion is so remarkable, 
that it is worthy of being specially referred to. He 
"was so far opposed to Phrenology that he made a 
collection of skulls, brains, casts, and drawings, 
amounting to several thousands, for the express pur- 
pose of overturning the science ; but when he came 
to examine his collection with attention, he was actu- 
ally converted, through its instrumentality, to a belief 
in the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim, and he has 
since been one of their most strenuous supporters.— 
{Phrenological Journal.) He spent six years in mak- 
ing his collection, at a cost of more than twelve thou- 
sand francs. — {Royer.) 

" Many of the phenomena of disease," says Dr Con- 
olly. Consulting Physician to the Hanwell Lunatic 
Asylum, " and the observation of all mankind, seem 
to me to prove that the first principles of Phrenology 
are founded in nature. On these, it is very probable 
that many fancies and errors may have been built; 



PEOGRESS OF PHRENOLOGY. 23 

but, now that anatomy and physiology have together 
penetrated so far into the separateness of structure 
and functions of the nerves, of the spinal marrow, and 
even of certain portions of the cerebral mass, I can 
see nothing which merits the praise of being philoso- 
phical in the real or affected contempt professed by so 
many anatomists and physiologists for a science which, 
however imperfect, has for its object the demonstra- 
tion that for other functions, the existence of which 
none can deny, there are further separations and dis- 
tinctions of hitherto unexplained portions of nervous 
matter." ''Those who now sneer at Phrenology in 
totOy^ observes Dr Johnson, the late eminent and ta- 
lented Editor of the Medico-Chirurgical Review, " are 
neither anatomists nor physiologists. That the brain 
is the organ of the mind is undeniable. . . . When we 
see, as in the Caucasian race, that size of cranium is 
the great criterion of intellect — that certain forms of 
head are historically, and by all admission, stamped 
as peculiarly intellectual —that even special mental 
qualities have a special cranial conformation, — when 
we see all this, which common daily observation proves, 
shall we say that these superficial truths, these facts 
that swim upon the surface of experience, are all that 
study, time, and reflection can amass — that philos- 
ophy must attempt no more without being set in 
the stocks as a witch, or pelted as a natural "? To our 
apprehension, to argue in this way is the fanaticism of 



24 PHEENOLOGY. 

prejudice, the confidence of ignorance, the re-enactment 
of that opposition to induction which has worn so 
many shapes, and has been foiled in all/' — {Medico- 
Chirurgical Review^ July 1842.) 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 

**I TAKE it for granted," says Spurzheim, "that every 
kind of knowledge is useful, or, as Lord Bacon said, 
' Knowledge is power/ I only add, that Phrenology con- 
cerns the most important element in the nature of 
man, the manifestations of his affective and intel- 
lectual faculties. Now, we examine all the beings 
which surround us ; we divide and subdivide the dif- 
ferent objects which nature presents to us ; we study 
mineralogy, botany, zoology : why should we not study 
man, who manifests the greatest number of faculties, 
and who is lord of the terrestrial creation? Man, 
therefore, considered merely as the most important 
being of creation, ought especially to interest every 
thinking person. Moreover, it must be surely of the 
utmost importance to know our own nature. Among 
the Greeks, the divine precept written upon the temple 
of Delphos was — Know thyself." — {Phrenology, vol. i.) 
The Hon. Judge Crampton, one of our best and most 
experienced Irish judges, said he was " persuaded that 
Phrenology is amongst the most important of the 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 25 

acquisitions made to the stock of modern knowledge, 
and that upon it must be based every sound system 
of philosophy." — (Mr Combe's Testimonials.) And Dr 
Stokes, of Dublin, says, " There can be no doubt that 
the principles of Phrenology are founded on truth, 
and, of course, highly deserving of your attention, as 
likely, at some future period, when properly cultivated, 
to exercise a great influence over medical practice. We 
shall then, I have no doubt, recognise it as the greatest 
discovery in the science of the moral and physical 
nature of man that has ever been made. I feel happy 
in thinking that of late the science has been taken up 
on its true grounds in Paris, London, and Dublin, 
Vimont's splendid work on Comparative Phrenology 
will form an era in the science. In London, Dr Elliot- 
son has directed the energies of his powerful mind to 
the subject ; and in Dublin we have a Phrenological 
Society, of which Sir Henry Marsh is the president, 
and Dr Evanson the secretary, and under such auspices 
much is to be expected." — (Eyan's London Medical 
Journal, vol. v. p. 646.) What think ye of this, Dr 
Gordon, Lord Jeffrey, and Mr Spencer Wells ? Surely 
Judge Crampton and Dr Stokes must have forgotten 
that Phrenology was a bubble ; that mountebank, fool, 
and phrenologist were synonymous terms ! 

The Eev. Dr Welsh, Professor of Church History in 
the University of Edinburgh, said, in the presence of 
Spurzheim, " It affords me inexpressible delight to see 



36 PHRENOLOGY. 

^with mine own eyes that great and gifted man," (the 
mountebank,) " who, from his extraordinary talents 
and indefatigable exertions, is to hold so conspicuous 
a place in the eye of all futurity. ... I feel as if I 
were discharging a debt of gratitude, under which he 
has placed me, when I bear public testimony in his 
presence to the pleasure and benefit which Phren- 
ology has afforded me in my own speculations, and 
still more to the unspeakable advantages I have de- 
rived from it in my professional capacity. I have 
found the greatest benefit from the science as a min- 
ister of the Gospel. ... I have examined the doctrines 
of our Church, (the Presbyterian,) one by one, in con- 
nexion with the truths of our new science, and have 
found the most wonderful harmony subsisting between 
them ; and, in dealing with my people in the ordinary 
duties of my calling, the practical benefit I have de- 
rived from Phrenology is inestimable. . . . The mo- 
ment we satisfied ourselves in regard to the evidence 
on which the science rests, we saw that Phrenology 
would be immortal, and we felt it opening up to our 
minds new views in regard to the condition of our 
nature and the destinies of our race. . . . We had 
nothing to fear from the reasoning of our opponents ; 
and as for their ridicule, so thoroughly am I devoted 
to the science, that I have always experienced a degree 
of satisfaction even in being laughed at for being a 
Phrenologist.'^ — {Phrenological Journal, vol. v. p. 110.) 



UTILITY OF PHEENOLOGY. 27 

What think you of this, Sir William Hamilton ? Has 
the Professor of Church History, in your own univer- 
sity, adopted a system of " implicit atheism — physical 
necessity — materialism ? " Why did you not get him 
expelled ? How did it come that, in place of being 
denounced for his atheism, he was actually appointed 
a professor for the Free Church of Scotland ? 

"How would we rejoice," said Mr George Combe, 
" to sit at table with Galileo, Harvey, and Newton, 
and to pay them the homage of our gratitude and 
respect, and yet we have the felicity to be now in 
company with Dr Spurzheim, whose name will rival 
theirs in brilliancy and duration ; to whom ages un- 
born will look with fond admiration, as the first great 
champion of this magnificent discovery ; as the part- 
ner in honour, in courage, and in toil with Dr Gall ; 
as the rival in genius of him by whose master-mind 
the science of man started into existence. Dr Spur- 
zheim, gentlemen, is an historical personage ; — a glory 
dwells on that brow which will never wax dim, and 
which will one day illuminate the civilised world." 

Most fully, heartily, and completely do I join Mr 
Combe in saying, " Were I at this moment offered the 
wealth of India on condition of Phrenology being 
blotted from my mind for ever, I would scorn the 
gift ; nay, were everything I possess in the world 
placed in one hand, and Phrenology in the other, and 
orders issued for me to choose one, Phrenology, with- 



26 PHRENOLOGY. 

out a moment's hesitation, would be preferred." '* I 
know Phrenology to be true/' says Professor Caldwell 
of America, '' in its details as well as in its principles, 
and surpassingly useful in its application and effects. 
The Book of Nature, which is in the handwriting of 
the living God, and bears on every page the inefface- 
able impress of His glorious signet, amply testifies to 
its correctness ; and, notwithstanding the thousand 
forms of obstinate and artful opposition it has encoun- 
tered, the world is already experiencing its benefits. 
With all who have honestly examined it, its triumph 
is complete. If there be any labours of my life, in 
which I would presume to glory, they are those which 
mark me as its steady adherent. And should men, in 
after-times, condescend to remember my name in kind- 
ness, their chief reason for the favour will be, that I 
have dared to be the friend of Phrenology, while most 
of my contemporaries have been its foes — and have 
never shrunk from raising my voice, or employing my 
feeble pen in its defence, through every stage of the 
long, ungenerous, and imbittered persecution it has 
been made to sustain." 

A practical acquaintance with Phrenology will be 
of the greatest advantage to us in our intercourse with 
society. It will enable us, at first sight, to form a 
tolerably accurate estimate of the talents, peculiarities, 
and natural dispositions of those with whom we may 
come in contact, even although we have nothing but 



UTILITY OF THRENOLOGY. 29 

our eye to judge by. Of course, without a manual 
examination, we could not be quite certain on all 
points ; but still the eye alone can form a correct 
estimate of a great many. Men who are shallow, but 
very plausible, will then cease to be placed on a par 
with those who are blessed with a more gigantic in- 
tellect ; and the sneaking, hypocritical class will no 
more be confounded with those who are endowed with 
strong moral faculties. 

To the teacher, Phrenology must be invaluable. It 
will enable him to measure exactly the capacity of the 
children who are committed to his care, and he will 
thus be saved from the present barbarous system of 
overloading those who are not naturally fitted for the 
burden. " How should that science fail to be of 
primary importance to a teacher, which should enable 
him to turn the studies of his pupils into the proper 
channel, and to have a thorough knowledge of their 
characters, which should inform him with certainty 
that such a one has a decided talent for drawing, such 
another for languages, a third for calculation, and a 
fourth for poetry ; and which should warn him that it 
would be a loss of time to urge the progress of a fifth 
in a particular direction ! How many tears would be 
spared to childhood ! How many vexations would the 
teacher himself escape ! And who will presume to 

foretell the results of such a system of education?'^ 

* 

— {Prospectus of the Paris Phrenological Society.) 



30 PHRENOLOGY. 

The history of Dean Swift, Thomas Chatterton, the 
Duke of Wellington, Sir Walter Scott, and Baron 
Liebig, is very instructive on this point. Swift was 
rejected at Trinity College, Dublin ; Chatterton was 
sent home from school as " being incapable of receiv- 
ing instruction ; " Wellington exhibited no superiority 
over his rivals f and Scott was the dunce of his class. 
There was nothing in the ordinary routine of juvenile 
education to call forth an exhibition of Scott's peculiar 
talents, and consequently he had to suffer in the esti- 
mation of his teacher and school-fellows ; but a Phreno- 
logist would have seen at a glance, that in one depart- 
ment at least the development of his brain placed him 
beyond the chance of rivalry. I cannot understand 
how any person can now look at the cast of Scott's 
head without being forcibly struck with the truth of 
Phrenology. (See Plate.) It is so remarkable, extra- 
ordinary, and perfectly unique in its form, that no 
person has ever seen one closely resembling it ; and I 
believe the history of the world does not produce a 
match for its owner in his own peculiar province. 
Should not these two facts go together? If a man 
with a unique head has a unique mental power, are 
we to be told there is no connexion whatever between 
them 1 Is this a rational course to pursue ? Liebig 
was considered such an incorrigible dunce at school 
that the master, after asking him some questions one 
day, threw down the book in absolute despair, and 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. ^ 31 

said, " What on earth will you be ! " Liebig imme- 
diately straightened himself up in a dignified manner, 
and replied, " I will be a Chemist.'^ The thing seemed 
so ludicrous and perfectly ridiculous that all the boys 
in the school burst out in a roar of laughter. But still 
Liebig was right. He felt the innate power ; and he 
cultivated his gift, and is now one of the most eminent 
chemists in the world. He is held in such estimation 
that he has been raised by his sovereign to the dignity 
of a Baron of the Empire. I do not wish to be under- 
stood as setting forth that Swift, Chatterton, Scott, and 
Liebig were incapable of acquiring a knowledge of any 
of the ordinary branches of education, if they had been 
properly taught. But the bent of their inclinations was 
so strong in the direction in which their special talents 
lay, that they could not well be kept to anything else 
by teachers who were wholly ignorant of their nature. 
Besides, we are informed by Professor Gregory that 
Liebig was deficient in the organs of Language and 
Number, and consequently could not succeed in a 
school where nearly everything was committed to 
memory. This miserable and most pernicious system 
of teaching left all the other important organs, which 
were largely developed, without the necessary and 
proper cultivation. If Liebig had not felt his own 
natural power, his great talents would have been lost 
to the world in consequence of the very defective plan 
on which his early education was conducted. 



32 ^^^^ PHRENOLOGY. 

" It is singular," says Allan Cunningham, " how few 
have had the fortune to be put at the outset of life 
into the path wherein their genius lay." This is a 
true and most lamentable fact ; but I cannot consider 
it by any means remarkable under present circum- 
stances. The anti-phrenological public have scarcely 
any means of judging of the peculiar talents and dis- 
positions of the rising generation, until they are de- 
veloped by time ; but then, alas ! the knowledge comes 
too late, as the fate of the parties, in most instances, 
has been irrevocably fixed. It would be nearly im- 
possible to over-rate the pleasure and advantages which 
would arise from having " the right man invariably in 
the right place." This would very generally be the 
case, if parents would make themselves well acquainted 
with the principles of Physiology and Phrenology. They 
would then have little difficulty in knowing whether or 
not their sons were adapted, by their constitutions 
and talents, for the professions or avocations in life 
which they might intend to place them in. Those who 
are in possession of real genius would not, as frequently 
happens now, be obliged to pine away their lives in a 
garret ; and parties would no longer be put to the 
learned professions, who are scarcely fitted for driving 
a plough, or scraping on a fiddle. " To hope," says Dr 
James Johnson, in his Economy of Healthy " for a good 
crop of science or literature from some intellects, is 
about the same as to expect olives to thrive on the 



. UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 33 

craggy summit of Ben Nevis, or the pine-apple to ex- 
pand amid the glaciers of Grindenwalde. Yet, from 
these sterile regions of mind, the hapless pedagogue is 
expected by some [anti-phrenological] parents to turn 
out Miltons, Lockes, and Newtons, with as much faci- 
lity as a gardener raises broccoli or cauliflowers from 
the rich alluvial grounds about Fulham or Eotterdam.'* 
The advantages which the system of education might 
derive from Phrenology are not more important than 
those which have already been experienced at its hands 
in the management of the insane. Phrenology has 
thrown such a flood of light on the condition of the 
hapless lunatic, that the plan of treatment has been 
completely reversed. Humanity has now been sub- 
stituted for the most barbarous cruelty. It is but 
right, however, to mention that^ although it has de- 
monstrated the theory and developed the principles on 
which the new plan of treatment is founded, and has 
compelled its general adoption, Phrenology has not the 
merit of originating the system of practical kindness 
towards the insane, as, to his immortal honour be it 
told, it was advocated and practised by Philip Pinel 
before the days of Gall's discovery. In the year 1792, 
Pinel, after having in vain urged the Government to 
allow him to unchain the maniacs of the Bicetre, went 
himself to the authorities and earnestly advocated the 
removal of this monstrous abuse. Couthon, a member 
of the Commune, yielded to the force of his arguments. 



34 PHRENOLOGY. 

and agreed to meet him at the Bicetre. When Couthon 
began to interrogate the inmates, he was so much 
alarmed by their abusive language, their crieSj and 
their yells, and by the clanking of their chains in their 
dark and filthy cells, that he was glad to get out of the 
way, and prophesied that Pinel would become their 
victim as soon as he released them. The heroic and 
benevolent Pinel, however, was determined to make 
the trial. The first man on whom he experimented 
was an English captain, who had been in chains for 
forty years. His keepers were afraid to go near him, 
as he had already killed one by a sudden blow from 
his manacles. Pinel entered his cell unattended, and 
said, " Captain, I will order your chains to be taken 
off, and give you liberty to walk in the court, if you 
promise me to behave well, and injure no one.^' "Yes," 
replied the maniac, " I promise you, but you are all 
too much afraid of me." " Believe me, on my word," 
said Pinel, " I will give you your liberty if you put on 
this waistcoat." It was done ; the chains were re- 
moved ; and the door of the cell was thrown open. 
The captain raised himself several times from his seat, 
but as often fell back again, as he had been so long 
chained down that he had lost the use of his legs. 
Poor fellow ! After a quarter of an hour's practice, 
he was able to maintain his balance, and came totter- 
ing forth from his dark and gloomy abode. He re- 
covered his strength, became happy and perfectly 



UTILITY OF PHIIENOLOGY. 35 

tranquil, and never afterwards gave any trouble, 
but rather assisted in managing other inmates. In 
the course of a few days, Pinel released upwards of 
fifty maniacs from their chains and miserable cells, 
and he had the great satisfaction of seeing tumult and 
disorder succeeded by tranquillity and harmony. — 
{Report ly PineVs son to the Academy of Sciences,) 

It is not more strange than true, that the success 
which attended Pinel's experiments in France, and 
Tuke's experiments in England, was unable to keep up 
public attention to the matter, or yet to secure per- 
manency of action. In the course of a short time, 
matters were as bad as ever. In his Memoir to the 
Minister of the Interior on the Establishments for the 
Insane in France, in the year 1818, Esquirol represents 
the patients as naked, or covered only with rags ; lying 
on the pavement with a little straw ; badly nourished ; 
deprived of fresh air, water, and all the comforts of 
life; at the mercy of brutal jailers; chained in dark 
and pestilential cells ; and less cared for than wild 
beasts. Whips, chains, and imprisonment constituted 
the whole of their treatment. — {London Medical Times 
and Gazette, February 1859.) 

Such was the condition of the insane in France in 
the year 1818. That it was no better in England in 
the year 1815, will appear from the following particu- 
lars, which were testified before a Committee of the 
House of Commons. In the York Asylum, the straw 



36 PHRENOLOGY. 

of the cells was saturated with filth ; thirteen women 
were confined in a room measuring only twelve feet by 
six ; and one man was covered with vermin, his legs 
were mortified, and the mark of the whip was on his 
back. In Bethlehem, London, one room contained ten 
females, each chained to the wall by a leg or arm. 
Their nakedness was covered only by a blanket-gown, 
and they had no shoes on their feet. Some of them 
were nearly unconscious. The men also were chained 
to the wall. One was locked to the wall by the arm 
and leg, and others were handcuffed. They were 
filthy, cold, and nearly naked. Their cells were kept 
in such a state that the visitors were obliged to throw 
off, if they remained in the contaminated atmosphere 
longer than a few minutes. 

Dr Crawford, of the Glasgow Asylum, in 1842, says, 
"At a period by no means remote, such establishments 
wore an aspect very different from what they do at 
present. The lunatic of those days was looked upon 
with a singular mixture of dread and pity. Eegarded 
as the victim of a peculiar and mysterious malady of 
mind, and as placed beyond the pale of humanity, by a 
disease which was inaccessible to all modes of moral 
treatment, and not amenable to the usual resources of 
medical science, little else was desired by his friends 
than the means of concealing him from a world to 
which they believed him already hopelessly dead, and 
the opportunity of shutting him up in a confinement 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 37 

where lie might be prevented from indulging those 
propensities of violence and ferocity, which they re- 
garded as the results of some inscrutable change in 
his mental constitution, and of which they stood in so 
much awe. Hence, at that period, such institutions 
not unfrequently combined the attributes of the 
prison-house and the grave ; and the restraints, 
punishments, and severity of the one, were veiled 
by the secrecy and silence of the other. Shut up 
in cells and cages — chains, fetters, iron collars, iron 
masks, and leather muzzles, the scourge, the blows, 
and the threats of a brutal keeper, together with the 
indiscriminate use of tartar-emetic and drastic purga- 
tives, constituted the treatment to which the hapless 
lunatic was subjected. The furious imprecations of 
the maniac, and the clanking of his fetters, were to be 
heard, mingled with the blows of the lash and the 
oaths of the attendant ; while the drivelling of hope- 
less idiocy, and the emaciation of person and distor- 
tion of figure caused by long confinement and restraint, 
illustrated the efficacy of the treatment. This 
picture is not an overcharged one, and many of its 
descriptions apply to even our principal public insti- 
tutions during the first ten years of the present cen- 
tury." 

" Not long before I began my residence at Hanwell," 
says Dr Conolly, '' I had seen, in some of our Enghsh 
provinces, patients chained to walls and pillars, raving. 



38 PHRENOLOGY. 

and scarcely clothed ; and whole apartments appropri- 
ated to the most troublesome, or to the most helpless 
and dirty patients, as they were called ; in which 
offensive places might be seen twenty or more men 
or women fastened in a row, and seated in clumsy 
wooden chairs, and fixed in a sort of narrow cell- 
stall. . . . There they sat, from morning to night, eat- 
ing there their miserable meals, and only removed at 
night to miserable beds of straw." — {Medical Gazette^ 
March 1860.) At his commencement in Hanwell, Dr 
Conolly found, " of restraint-chairs, forty-nine ; of re- 
straint-sleeves, seventy-eight ; of leg -locks and hand- 
cuffs, three hundred and fifty-two ; and of leather 
straps, fifty-one ; besides ten leather muffs, two extra 
strong iron leg-locks, and two dreadful screw-gags." — 
{Medical Gazette, April 1860.) 

"In 1815, a committee was appointed by the House 
of Commons to inquire into the condition of things at 
Bedlam. Many of the patients were found locked in 
their cells, stark naked, and lying chained on straw, 
with only one blanket for a covering." — {Lancet, Dec. 
1864.) The Eev. Dr Eeed says he had seen, "both in 
Wales and in Cornwall, the wretched idiot chained, 
like a felon, in the common pound, or lock-up house 
of the village green, or chased hither and thither, the 
scoff and the outcast of the whole hamlet." — {Life of 
Reed, the founder of the Earlswood Asylum.) 

In his work on Insanity, Dr Spurzheim gives a 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 39 

most distressing account of what he witnessed in his 
travels. ^'Even the separation of the patients," he 
says, " was neglected. The most furious and the 
most melancholy ; the most imperious and the most 
fearful ; the most vociferous and the most cheerful ; 
the most villanous and most religious ; clean and un- 
clean ; curable, convalescent, and incurable— are put 
together ; all is chaos and confusion. I have seen 
patients fastened by chains, sitting at the grating of 
their doors or windows, like savage animals in cages. 
The villains who have disturbed the peace of society 
live in palaces, and have everything comfortable and 
clean ; while the poor insane, who want and deserve 
our pity, lie on straw and dirt, exposed to all the vicis- 
situdes of season and weather, reduced to the mercy 
of the turnkey, and less attended to than a horse or a 
wild beast." 

Europe was not alone in this matter. America was 
in pretty much the same predicament, as may be seen 
by referring to the Second Report of the Prison Dis- 
cipline Society : — " One man was found in an apart- 
ment in which he has been for nine years. He had a 
wreath of rags round his body, and another round his 
neck. This was all his clothing. He had no bed, 
chair, or bench. A heap of filthy straw, like the nest 
of swine, was in the corner. He had built a bird's 
nest of mud in the iron grate of his den. Connected 
with his wretched apartment was a dark dungeon, 



40 PHRENOLOGY. 

having no orifice for the admission of light, heat, or 
air, except the iron door, about 2^ feet square, open- 
ing into it from the prison. The other lunatics in the 
same prison were scattered about in different apart- 
ments with thieves and murderers, and persons under 
arrest, but not yet convicted of guilt. In the prison, 
or House of Correction, so called, in which were ten 
lunatics, two were found about seventy years of age, a 
male and female, in tbe same apartment. The female 
was lying on a heap of straw under a broken window. 
The snow, in a severe storm, was beating through the 
window, and lay upon the straw around her withered 
body, which was partially covered with a few filthy and 
tattered garments. The man was lying in the corner \ 
of the room in a similar situation, except that he was 
less exposed to the storm. The former had been in 
this apartment six, and the latter twenty-one years. 
Another lunatic, in the same prison, was found in an 
apartment where he had been eight years. During 
this time he had never left the room but twice. The 
door had not been opened in eighteen months. The 
food was furnished through a small orifice in the door. 
The room was warmed by no fire ; and still the woman 
of the house said ^ he had never froze? The hair was 
gone from one side of his head, and his eyes were like 
balls of fife." 

Such was the state of the management of the insane 
all over the world about the time when the discoveries 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 41 

of Gall and Spurzheim began to take root in the public 
mind. Their investigations on the complexity of the 
brain, I am happy to say, opened up new and very 
important views regarding insanity ; and developed a 
simple, rational, and, in many instances, successful 
method of treating the poor lunatic. " If all my re- 
searches," says Gall, ^' should only conduct me to this 
result, I should deem myself sufficiently rewarded for 
my labours. If men of sense will not thank me, I 
ought, at least, to be sure of the thanks of fools." 
Yes ; the fools had a good right to thank him, as he 
was the first to throw such light on the different forms 
of insanity as enabled its treatment to be based on 
perfectly rational and scientific principles. Dr Guy, 
the Professor of Forensic Medicine at King's College, 
London, very fairly admits that ''to Gall and Spurz- 
heim, and their followers, is due the great merit of 
having directed attention to those faculties which are 
the real source of action — the emotions and passions ; 
and to them must be ascribed the praise of having 
originated the simplest, and by far the most practical, 
theory of the human mind," (Forensic Medicine, by 
Guy). " The business of reform," says Dr Clendin- 
ning, " in mental science, has been resumed on other 
and sounder principles by Dr Gall ; and Phrenology 
will, I doubt not, generally be regarded as the only 
system before the pubhc that makes any tolerable ap- 
proach to what the enlightened common sense of man- 



42 PHRENOLOGY. 

kind can recognise as real in science, or useful for 
practical purposes. It was the study of insanity very 
much that gave Gall the clue ; mad people are uncon- 
scious witnesses against, and telling illustrations of, 
the unsoundness of the earlier systems." — {Clinical 
Lectures^ 1842.) 

Sir William C. ElKs, Physician to the great Han- 
well Asylum, candidly owns that until he " became 
acquainted with Phrenology, he had no solid basis on 
which he could ground any treatment for the cure of 
the disease of insanity." He very properly considers 
that insanity is almost always partial, — that it seldom 
involves the whole of the organs, and consequently, 
that in all cases alleviation, and in many cure, may be 
effected by temperately, yet steadily, exercising the 
sane organs, and soothing the insane to repose. This 
is the grand principle which lies at the foundation of 
successful treatment. It is based upon the phreno- 
logical doctrine, that the brain, and not the mind, 
is the real seat of disease ; and also that the brain, 
in place of being a single organ, is composed of a 
variety of parts performing different functions. The 
parts of the brain which are under disease should be 
allowed to rest, whilst the sound are called into regular 
exercise. In order to accomplish this object, occupa- 
tion of such a description as will suit the individual is 
provided for every patient in those Institutions which 
are managed on the new and improved system, whilst 



UTILITY UF PHRENOLOGY. 43 

cruelty and harshness of all kinds are peremptorily 
interdicted. 

It is pleasing to reflect on the results produced by 
kind treatment, freedom from restraint, and suitable 
employment of the insane. When this system was 
introduced by the medical superintendent, at the 
Wakefield Asylum, the prejudice against it was so 
great, that it was actually suggested that no patient 
should be employed at work outside the walls without 
being chained to a keeper. The superintendent of 
this asylum was Sir William C. Ellis, (already referred 
to as a Phrenologist,) who afterwards had charge of the 
Hanwell Institution. When at Han well, Sir W. C. Ellis 
made it a rule to occupy his patients as much as pos- 
sible with light, but useful, labour in the open air. 
He found they had always sufficient sense to enjoy 
useful labour, whilst they had a particular dislike to 
what was useless. The result of this plan of manage- 
ment was most satisfactory. One poor woman, who 
had previously been furiously mad, and ten years in 
chains, was only fifteen months in this house till she 
was as free from restraint as any of the others. In- 
stead of being placed in chains, she was allowed to 
work in the garden ; and she took great pleasure in 
her employment. Such is the history of many others. 
Out of 610 patients, 454 were in regular work of some 
sort ; and they were all treated with kindness and 
sympathy. This plan produced such health of body 



44 PHRENOLOGY. 

and tranquillity of disposition, that the patients slept 
the entire night. Dr Ellis says his sleep was not in- 
terrupted by them three times in the year. 

Dr Crawford gives a very interesting account of the 
effects produced by entire freedom from restraint in 
the Northampton Asylum, in August 1838. A num- 
ber of pauper lunatics were brought to it from other 
places of confinement where the system of restraint 
was in force. Two men were admitted with their legs 
confined by heavy irons, and their wrists by handcuffs. 
The officer who brought them from the other institu- 
tion refused to take back these instruments, when he 
heard there were none in the new institution, because 
he was certain the maniacs would take lives, if they 
were set at liberty, as they had hitherto been very 
ferocious. All restraint, however, was removed at 
bedtime, and never afterwards had recourse to. One 
of the men became so kind, useful, and trustworthy, 
that he was allowed to carry a pass-key, and assist 
the attendants. The other became quiet and tract- 
able, although at first he was particularly formidable 
and bloodthirsty. A powerful, violent, and dangerous 
young woman, who had been in irons for 59 weeks, 
was admitted. Her shackles were removed, she was 
set to scour the floors and do other sorts of work, 
and at the end of eight months she was discharged 
cured. Were it necessary, I could multiply examples 
of this description to a great extent, but I refrain from 



UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY. 43 

SO doiDg, as I am not writing a treatise on insanity. 
Suffice it to say, that whilst the diseased cerebral organs 
are allowed to rest, the healthy ones are brought into 
full play ; and regular employment, healthful recrea- 
tion, rational amusement, and entire freedom from 
restraint, are the invariable rule of every important 
and well-conducted asylum in the empire at the pre- 
sent day. 

Dr W. A. r. Browne, who is now one of her Majesty's 
Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland, says, that, in 
consequence of his previous knowledge of Phrenology, 
he was able to derive great additional information dur- 
ing his studies at Salpetriere and Charenton ; and he 
ascribes the success which attended his treatment at 
the large institutions in Scotland which were under 
his charge, to his phrenological acquirements. '^ I un- 
hesitatingly give it as my deliberate conviction,^' says 
Dr Scott, of the Eoyal Hospital at Haslar, " that no 
man, whatever may be the qualification in other re- 
spects, will be very successful in the treatment of 
insanity in its various forms, if he be not well ac- 
quainted with practical Phrenology ; and I will add, 
that whatever success may have attended my own 
practice in the Lunatic Asylum of this great national 
establishment, over which I have presided as chief 
medical officer for many years, I owe it, almost ex- 
clusively, to my knowledge of Phrenology." 

I need not dwell longer on the advantages to be 



46 PHRENOLOGY. 

derived from Phrenology, as its utility extends to 
nearly every subject we can contemplate, and its 
benefit will be felt in almost every position in which 
we can be placed in this life. It includes the intel- 
lectual, moral, and animal nature of man, and there- 
fore has to do with the thoughts and actions of the 
human race. 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 

There is nothing more common than to hear people 
asserting their belief in the general principles of Phren- 
ology, and at the same time objecting to its minute 
details. Now, I apprehend this sort of reasoning is 
both shallow and inconsistent. Take away the details 
from any subject, and where are its general principles ? 
Whence did Lavoisier, Dalton, and others deduce the 
general laws and principles of Chemistry? Surely 
from those minute details which were discovered by 
practical observation. This is the only true method 
of philosophising. What would you think of the man 
who would tell you he believed in the reality of the 
human body as a whole, but denied the existence and 
construction of the different parts of which it is com- 
posed ? You would undoubtedly denounce him as an 
ignorant pretender. And yet, many men who are 
classed amongst the learned are in the constant habit 
of expressing similar opinions regarding Phrenology. 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 47 

Such opinions, however, correspond very well with 
the system of those would-be-philosophers who form 
a number of general principles out of their own ima- 
ginations, and then go in quest of details to support 
them. Of course, the details are always made to agree 
with the imaginary principles. This is a much speedier 
and easier plan than the one which recognises general 
principles only when they result from, and rest upon, 
an extensive series of carefully-observed details. It is 
really lamentable to think how prone men are to de- 
pend on theory, and how difficult it is to teach them 
that observation is the only sure foundation on which 
scientific knowledge can be built. As Dr Gall has 
correctly observed, "they are more disposed to give 
themselves to speculation, than to the painful study 
of nature." 

I was rather surprised to see that Ephemera, a sen- 
sible writer on fishing, has fallen into the common 
error regarding philosophy. In his controversy with 
Mr Boccius, he says his opinions are taken " from 
practical persons who have resided constantly for 
many years on the banks of salmon rivers, and fished 
them observantly. Their opinions, therefore, are worthy 
of great attention. The opinions of Mr Boccius are 
those of a philosopher. Philosophy is very good, but 
the long experience of intelligent and indefatigable 
observers is better." We here find philosophy and 
observation placed in direct antagonism to each other, 



4:8 PHRENOLOGY. 

which is truly preposterous. Philosophy of this de- 
scription is no better than the ravings of a madman. 
It is the only sort of philosophy, however, which has 
yet been brought to bear against the truths of Phren- 
ology. 

The Prospectus which has been issued by Dr Todd, 
on the completion of his Cijclopcedia of Anatomy and 
Physiology y contains the following remarkable and in- 
structive sentence : " So rapid," says he, '' have been 
the advances which physical science has made within 
the last quarter of a century, that most, if not all^ 
the formerly received doctrines of physiology have 
required revision, while its ^established' facts have de- 
manded re-investigation by original experiment." This 
sentence correctly represents the miserable plight in 
which physiology has been placed by its theorising 
adherents, whilst it plainly proves that the physio- 
logical school has not been guided by rigid philoso- 
phical principles. If nearly all these doctrines require 
revision they are not founded in nature, but are the 
result of pure imagination. Nature does not change 
in this sort of way. Whatever she says once, she 
says for ever. How can those things be " established 
facts" which Dr Todd says require "re-investigation 
by original experiment " ? Just imagine an established 
fact which requires a new set of experiments to prove 
whether it is a fact at all, or not ! What a contempt- 
ible idea does this give us of that much-boasted science 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 49 

of Physiology which has taken such a high hand in 
endeavouriog to put down Phrenology ! ! Some cele- 
brated Physiologists have taken their stand on the 
side of the Phrenologists. To the puny efforts of the 
remainder we can bid a proud defiance. 

I once heard a much-esteemed physiological pro 
fessor declare, after the example of Berard and De 
Montegre, that the different organs which the Phreno- 
logists- have delineated on the head can have no exist- 
ence, because it is impossible to point out the exact 
spot where one organ ends and another begins. Now, 
I ask, would he deny the existence of the separate 
features in the human countenance merely because he 
could not demonstrate the exact line which separates 
the one from the other ? Certainly not. Why, then, 
will he act differently towards Phrenology ? When he 
points out to a hair's-breadth the divisions of the face, 
I will undertake to do the same with the organs of the 
head. Till then, I shall rest satisfied in knowing that 
the organs are as easily distinguished from each other 
as the chin is from the cheeks. I would further like 
to know if he could survey the billows which roll over 
the bosom of the mighty deep, and point out the exact 
spot where the little rippling waves arise from the sur- 
face of the water which surrounds them. Because this 
is impossible, are we to deny there is such a thing 
on all the surface of the ocean as a wave ? Surely 
not. Why, then, are Phrenologists to be tormented 



50 PHRENOLOGY. 

with such, miserable objections, even from the pro- 
fessor's chair? They are so very frivolous as to be 
altogether unworthy of the slightest notice, were it 
not that they obtain an artificial importance from the 
position of the parties who have thought proper to 
adduce them. It is truly marvellous how the most 
frivolous objections are produced over and over again. 
If they were answered a thousand times, they would 
crop up the next day as fresh as ever. How are we to 
account for this fact ? Is it owing to an ungenerous 
intention on the part of our opponents ? This may 
be the case in some instances ; but I believe, in the 
great majority of cases, it is owing to the consummate 
ignorance of our opponents in regard to the science 
which they attempt to overturn. In his Evidences of 
Divine Revelation^ Mr Haldane says : ^' From the age 
of Celsus and Porphyry, down to that of Yoltaire and 
Thomas Paine, it may safely be affirmed there never 
has appeared one solitary unbeliever who has disco- 
vered by his writings, that he was thoroughly conversant 
with the nature or the evidences of that Eevelation 
which he undertook to overthrow." This is exactly 
the position of matters regarding the opponents of 
Phrenology. Their arguments are all founded on false 
conceptions, arising from ignorance of the subject of 
which they treat. There can be no possible excuse, 
however, for such conduct. It is unphilosophical as 
well as unprincipled. It is the duty of every man, 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 5 1 

before rejecting or believing the science, to put him- 
self in the best position he possibly can for obtaining 
a thorough and perfectly accurate practical knowledge 
of the subject. If he enter the opposition list with- 
out taking this precaution, he is neither honest as a 
man nor true as a philosopher. 

Since the foregoing pages went to press, my atten- 
tion has been directed to an article against Phrenology 
in the first number of Good Words for 1863. It is 
from the pen of Sir David Brewster. I would recom- 
mend all my readers to peruse this article, in order 
that they may see the insignificance and utter worth- 
lessness of the arguments adduced against the science. 
It speaks volumes in favour of Phrenology, to find that 
a man in the position of the learned Principal of the 
Edinburgh University is unable to bring any substan- 
tial objection against it. There is only one observa- 
tion in the article which requires even a passing notice, 
and that is, the case of the turnip. " Mr Alexander 
Nasmyth, the celebrated landscape painter," says Sir 
David Brewster, " sent to his Phrenological friend, Dr 

, the cast of a remarkable head. The cast was 

carefully examined, and its high moral and intellectual 
development duly recorded, and presented to the artist. 
But, alas ! for science, the cast had been taken from a 
remarkable turnip that had presumed to compete with 
the craniology of man." So much for the statement 
which is to overturn Phrenology. Now for its truth. 



52 PHEENOLOGY. 

That such a story might have passed as true with a 
certain gullible portion of the community in the year 
1821, when the trick was attempted to be perpetrated, 
is not very remarkable, but that it should be seriously 
adduced, in the year 1863, as a fact to overturn Phren- 
ology, by a person in Sir David Brewster's position, is 
all but incredible. For the sake of his great scientific 
character, it is to be hoped he was doting when he 
wrote the article for Good Words, The Phrenological 
Journal for 1823 contains an accurate report of the 
matter regarding the turnip from the pen of Mr 
Combe, on whom the trick was tried to be played. 
" In April 1821," says the Journal, " a medical gentle- 
man in Edinburgh, aided by a landscape painter, 
fashioned a turnip into the nearest resemblance to a 
human skull which their combined skill and ingenuity 
could produce. They had a cast made from it, and 
sent it to Mr Combe, requesting his observations on 
the mental talents and dispositions which it indicated, 
adding, that it was the cast of the skull of a person of 
uncommon character. Mr Combe, who says that the 
imitation was execrably bad, and the cast smelled so 
strongly of turnip that a cow could have discovered its 
origin, instantly detected the trick, and returned the 
cast, with the following parody of ' The Man of Thes- 
saly ' pasted on the coronal surface :— 

" Th^ere was a man in Edinburg, 
And he was wond'rous wise ; 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 53 

He we at into a turnip field, 
And cast about his eyes. 

" And when he cast his eyes about, 
He saw the turnips fine ; 
' How many heads are there,' says he, 
* That likeness bear to mine ? 

*' ' *S^o very like they are, indeed, 
No sage, I 'm sure, could know 
This turnip -head that I have on 
From those that there do grow.' 

" He pull'd a turnip from the ground ; 
A cast from it was thrown ; 
He sent it to a Spurzheimite, 
And pass'd it for his own. 

" And so, indeed, it truly was 
His own in every sense ; 
For CAST and joke alike were made 
All at his own expense." 



So much for the truthfulness of the story adduced by 
Sir David Brewster to overturn Phrenology. But 
there is another view of the matter which has been 
referred to by Mr Combe. Suppose the doctor and 
the landscape painter had been handy enough to carve 
the turnip into a perfect representation of the human 
head, would the cast taken from it not have been as 
accurate a representation of humanity as the cast 
taken from the head itself? To be sure it would. 
How, then, could such a case militate against Phren- 
ology ? Impossible. If Chantrey had carved an accu- 



54 PHRENOLOGY. 

rate bust from Sir David Brewster's head, would a 
cast from the bust not show the same Phrenological 
developments as a cast from the real head? It cer- 
tainly would. If this were not so, the bust, would not 
be worth having. On the supposition of the bust 
being accurate, the Phrenologist must take the same 
out of the one cast as out of the other. To imagine 
anything else would be as absurd as to argue that the 
cast from the bust made by Chantrey did not represent 
mouthj nose, eyes, or chin, because it was cast on the 
bust in place of the real head. In fact, if Sir David 
Brewster had given the slightest possible considera- 
tion to the subject, he must have seen that his argu- 
ment was perfectly childish, even if his story had been 
true. As Mr Combe says, " There was a lack, not only 
of wit, but of judgment, in the very conception of the 
trick. If the imitation was complete, no difference 
could exist between a cast from a turnip, and a cast 
from the skull which it was made exactly to resemble ;" 
but if it was imperfect, the trick, as in this case, would 
at once be detected. Again, supposing the representa- 
tion to be very imperfect, and that the Phrenologist 
would be so far overseen as to mistake the cast from 
the turnip for one from the real head, would this prove 
Phrenology untrue ? Certainly not. It would prove 
the Phrenologist to be incompetent for the task he 
undertook ; but it would in no way militate against 
the truth of Phrenology. Sir David Brewster's argu- 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 55 

ment confounds the truth of the science with the 
capacity of the observer. In point of fact, his objec- 
tions to Phrenology are so trifling and miserably in- 
significant, that I could not bring myself to believe he 
ever wrote the article for Good Words, were it not that 
his name is signed to it. A superficial writer like Dr 
Gordon or Dr Eoget might produce such an article ; 
but that a real philosopher like Sir David Brewster 
should be so far overseen, is hardly within the bounds 
of credibility. 

It has been objected that Phrenology gives a redun- 
dancy of organs on some points, whilst there is a de- 
ficiency on others. I am perfectly willing to grant 
that, if the objector were at it, he would make all to 
his own mind. He would observe a part, and then, 
by theorising, make up the remainder according to his 
own fancy and imagination. This would be an easy 
and a speedy method, but it would not satisfy the 
Phrenologists, who prefer to confine themselves to the 
observation of nature, and take things exactly as they 
find them. They prefer to collect facts, rather than 
make them. As regards the deficiency of organs, I 
confess it with sorrow ; but as the science is far from 
complete, future observations will make additions to 
the number. In reference to the redundancy spoken 
of, I shall endeavour to show what is meant by the 
term. It is said to be a point of redundancy to have 
an organ of Form and an organ of Size, because the 



56 PHRENOLOGY. 

metaphysicians imagine that extension includes both. 
Now, I just ask my common-sense readers, will the 
extent of a horse give them a proper idea of his sym- 
metry and form, and will his shape give them an exact 
idea of his size or measurement ? Can two eggs not 
have the same form, and the size of the one still be 
double that of the other ? The distinction between 
the size of an object and its form is as plain as the 
light of heaven. No man but a metaphysician could 
ever think of questioning it. Again, in relation to 
Concentrativeness and Adhesiveness, it is asked, 
"What is the meaning of the development of an 
organ, but that the faculty attributed to it is strong, 
and wherein, therefore, Hes the utility of having two 
such organs as Concentrativeness and Adhesiveness '* 
to express an attachment to a particular object, which 
arises from Adhesiveness alone? Supposing, now, 
that a person's feeling of attachment, arising from a 
large Adhesiveness, is strong, does it by any means 
follow, in the absence of Concentrativeness and Firm- 
ness, that it must be constant ? Will the mere 
strength of it insure its constancy ? Alas ! it is very 
frequently the reverse. Has the objector never met 
any person in the world whose friendship was strong 
and fervid for the time being, but who was, neverthe- 
less, as fickle and uncertain as the wind ? And has he 
not met others whose attachment, though less power- 
ful at the time, was as constant as the sun ? How 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 57 

ignorant such objectors are of the plainest elements of 
human nature ! 

*^Some of the organs," says the Popular Encyclo- 
pcedia, " have balancing faculties, such as Destructive- 
ness, which is balanced by Benevolence, &c. But 
why have two organs, when the two principles neces- 
sarily imply each other, and when either could be in- 
dicated by the elevation or depression of a single 
bump. It would be easier to bring down Destructive- 
ness to the requisite standard, by diminishing its 
peculiar organ, than by leaving it large, and adding to 
the bulk of Benevolence. Or if a particular organ re- 
quires a compensating one, why not carry the principle 
out through the whole system ? Why not match 
Veneration with an organ of Scorn, or Language with 
an organ of Silence ? " It would be difficult to find 
another paragraph which could manifest such a de- 
plorable ignorance of human nature, and of the 
method in which philosophical investigation should 
be conducted, as this one. It proves completely the 
spirit of the writer. He would never think of resting 
contented with observing man as he is, but he would 
make him after his own fancy, and wherever nature 
appeared to his eyes to require amendment, he would 
fill up the picture out of his own crude imagination. 
Phrenology would never suit for a novelist of this 
description. Nature would be beneath his notice. 
He is a builder of castles in the air. In looking at his 



58 PHKENOLOGY. 

objection, however, we may throw Phrenology aside for 
the present, and try his principles on the broad basis 
of human nature. If there be any meaning in what 
he says, it must be that man does not possess distinct 
principles of Benevolence and Destructiveness ; — that 
they are one and the same thing, if, as he asserts, 
they necessarily imply each other, and do not require 
separate organs ; — that they do not exist as separate 
faculties in nature. If this be not his meaning, how 
would he make out the " redundancy" of which he 
speaks ? On his principle of redundancy there can be 
no such thing in nature as a feeling of Destructiveness 
distinct from a feeling of Benevolence. If, as he says, 
" Destructiveness and Benevolence necessarily imply 
each other" in such a way as to require only one 
organ, of course they must be one and the same thing, 
and cannot be considered as distinct faculties either 
in mind or body. How, then, can he account for the 
occurrences which are constantly taking place before 
his eyes 1 Is it Destructiveness which prompts the 
British nation to furnish each regiment of soldiers 
with a couple of surgeons for the purpose of binding 
up the wounds of those who fall in battle ? Is it 
Benevolence which crowns with honour the soldier who 
has carried the most deadly weapon, and who has dealt 
out death and destruction to all who opposed him ? 
Will any man stand up and tell me that our nation 
does not possess a distinct principle of Benevolence 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 59 

and Destructiveness, and that they cannot both be in 
operation at the same time, the one towards our 
friends and the other towards our enemies ? Nay, 
more, the faculty of Benevolence may be the very 
means of rousing the faculty of Destructiveness into 
action. This is quite a common occurrence. "Which 
of us," says Falingieri, " on hearing the narrative of an 
atrocious crime, would not wish to have in his own 
grasp the wretch who has committed it, in order to 
avenge the wrong done to the unfortunate man totally 
unknown to us." We have an example of the same 
feeling in Burns the poet, who, when he saw a man 
shooting at and wounding a hare, cursed him bitterly 
and threatened to throw him into the river Nith. 
When Mr Wm. M^Intyre was walking on the Coleraine 
bridge, he saw a young fellow kicking the crutches 
from a very old man who had two wooden legs, and 
thus bringing him to the ground. M'lntyre's feeling 
of Benevolence towards the old man roused his feeling 
of Destructiveness against the young miscreant to 
such a pitch that, he told me, he could not restrain 
himself from inflicting summary punishment. It so 
happens that both these organs are very largely de- 
veloped in my own head, and I can testify from per- 
sonal experience as to the perfect correctness of every 
distinction the Phrenologists have made concerning 
them. The Daily Argus ^ Madison, Indiana, reports a 
trial for murder under the following circumstances : — 



60 PHRENOLOGY, 

"A beautiful, fair-haired, blue-eyed boy, about nine 
years of age, was taken from the orphan asylum in 
Milwaukie, and adopted by a respectable farmer at 
Marquette. A girl, a little older than the boy, was 
also adopted into the same family. Soon after these 
children were installed in their new home, the boy dis- 
covered criminal conduct on the part of his new 
mother, which he mentioned to the little girl, and it 
thereby came to the ears of the woman. She indig- 
nantly denied the story, to the satisfaction of her 
husband, and insisted that the boy should be whipped 
until he confessed the falsehood. The man proceeded 
to the task assigned him, by procuring a bundle of 
rods, stripping the child naked, and suspending him 
by a cord to the rafters of the house, and whipping 
him at intervals for over two hours, till the blood ran 
through the floor, making a pool upon the floor below, 
stopping only to rest and interrogate the boy, and 
getting no other reply than * Pa, I told the truth — I 
cannot tell a lie ; ' the woman all the time urging him 
to ^ do his duty.' The poor little hero, at length re- 
leased from his torture, threw his arms around the 
neck of his tormentor, kissed him, and said, ^ Pa, I am 
so cold ! ' and died." The man who can read this 
without feeling that he possesses both Benevolence 
and Destructiveness, is not to be envied. For my 
part, I feel that I could almost pull the rope which 
would hang the culprit, whilst I could shed tears over 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 61 

the heroic little martyr to truth, very nearly as readily 
as I did when I made myself sick in childhood over the 
stories of " The Hunted Hare " and " The Babes in the 
Wood/' 

Can the judge have no softness in his bosom when 
he pronounces the fatal sentence on the culprit ? and 
can the surgeon feel no tender sympathy for his patient 
when he is about to remove a portion of his body? 
" Perhaps no surgeon ever operated/' says Sir J. Y. 
Simpson, " either more frequently or more successfully 
than the celebrated Cheselden ; and, notwithstanding 
the extensive practice he had enjoyed, he always, be- 
fore an operation, felt sick at the thoughts of the pain 
he was about to inflict ; though during its perform- 
ance, his coolness and presence of mind never forsook 
him." Here, again, we have the two faculties in power- 
ful action. Is there an individual, I ask, within the 
pale of well-balanced humanity whose blood does not 
boil within him, and whose feeling of Destructiveness 
is not roused to the highest pitch, when he remembers 
the base and treacherous massacre at Cabool ? and, 
nevertheless, does he not feel that his bowels yearn 
with Benevolent compassion over the fate of the un- 
daunted Macnaghten and his brave associates ? Again, 
was it Destructiveness that actuated a Wilberforce, a 
Howard, and a Fry ? and was it pure Benevolence that 
prompted the bloody deeds of Greenacre, Hare, and 
Delahunt ? And still we are expected to keep our 



62 PHEENOLOGY. 

temper when we are told that Phrenology is a fable, 
because it grants distinct principles of Benevolence 
and Destructiveness to human nature 1 ! 

It is almost universally the case that the individual 
who holds the wrong side of a question either wilfully 
misrepresents the doctrine of his opponents, or shows 
great ignorance of the subject under debate. The 
author of the article on Phrenology, in the Popular 
Encyclopcedia, has thrown himself open to one or other 
of these charges, as is proved by the following state- 
ment : — " The organ of Secretiveness," says he, " which, 
indicates a thief, also indicates a liar, an actor, and a 
novelist ! It is even said to be necessary to constitute 
dignity of character ! " On this I observe, that Phren- 
ologists do not say the organ of Secretiveness indicates 
either one or other of the characters mentioned. It is 
a necessary ingredient in their character ; but it alone 
will not distinguish them from other people, and 
therefore can never indicate their dispositions. For 
example, an actor requires eyes, and a thief must have 
hands ; but would any person out of Bedlam ever 
imagine that hands and eyes always iiidicate a thief 
and an actor ? And yet the sage writer for the Ency^ 
clopcedia would stuff* an analogous doctrine into the 
mouths of Phrenologists. Besides, I presume, accord- 
ing to his view of the question, Secretiveness does not 
enter into the composition of these characters at all. 
Let him, however, adopt his favourite metaphysical 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 63 

theory, or any other he chooses, and I would just ask 
him to inform us how a person can be a thief without 
the power of hiding ? or an actor without the capacity 
for concealing his own character, while he represents 
that of his hero ? or how the lady could support her 
dignity, whose tongue would rattle off every thought 
of her mind on the instant ? "A fool," says Solomon, 
" uttereth all his mind ; but a wise man keepeth it in 
till afterwards." 

We are frequently, however, urged with a much 
greater and more serious objection than any of those 
I have yet mentioned ; and it is this, — Phrenology re- 
presents such a relationship between mind and matter 
as is calculated to lead men into materialism and in- 
fidelity, and would, either directly or indirectly, under- 
mine human responsibility, and the very foundations 
of Christianity. This objection demands our most 
serious consideration. It has been frequently put for- 
ward with great plausibility, and has had an immense 
influence in retarding the progress of Phrenology. 
The very sound of it alarms ill-informed but well- 
meaning people. It often prevents them from investi- 
gating the subject at all. The fear of this point, 
together with a wholesome objection to the theological 
sentiments which some leading Phrenologists have 
j)laced before the world, has hitherto been the means 
of throwing Phrenology, in a great measure, into the 
hands of materialists, free-thinkers, and infidels. This 



64 PHRENOLOGY. 

is not as it should be ; but the blame rests chiefly on 
the leaders of the Christian community, who have 
neglected or refused to investigate the matter. In 
many instances, they have condemned the science 
without knowing anything about it. Their conduct is 
blameworthy in the extreme. I hope to see the day, 
however, when matters will wear a different aspect, 
when Phrenology will be the favourite science of the 
Christian philosopher. That it is not open to the 
charge of materialism will be abundantly evident be- 
fore this work is concluded. In the meantime, let us 
look at the three following points : — 

In the FIRST place, then, I observe, the science of 
Phrenology rests upon the observation of facts alone, 
and consequently cannot be overturned by mere argu- 
ment from preconceived opinions, unless we adopt the 
sentiments of the Frenchman, who, when reminded 
that the facts were against his theories, at once re- 
plied, " So much de vorse for de facts, den." The 
truth is, facts are " stubborn things," and they cannot 
be evaded or annihilated by any process of reasoning 
whatever. As Dr Spurzheim very properly remarks, 
" that which is, is." But even on theoretical grounds, 
I would not yield the point, as the science is capable 
of being supported by reasoning the most rigid and 
conclusive. It matters not in what direction almost 
we turn our thoughts, we will find arguments in its 
favour. Indeed, I could gather a vast amount of 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 65 

strong corroborative proof for it out of the writings of 
its opponents ; and I believe it is impossible to raise a 
single objection against it which cannot be answered, 
(at least I have never heard one,) although that is 
not absolutely necessary in making out a case for it. 
Many objections might be answered, and the theory 
might be very attractive ; but still a cautious inquirer 
after truth should not receive it, unless it is fully sup- 
ported by practice. Again, if practice can establish 
it, it is the part of a complete fool to attempt to over- 
turn it by theory. Hence a necessity of grappling 
with its facts lies upon those individuals who raise a 
clamour against it. If it be practically false, let them 
banish it from enlightened society ; but if it be founded 
in nature, the ridicule and opprobrium which have 
fallen on the persecutors of Galileo and Harvey must 
one day be the lot of those who render it such frivo- 
lous opposition. If our system be untrue, let our 
opponents brings us to the test of practice, and thus 
prove that such is the case. We are ready to meet 
them fearlessly, and that gives them a fine oppor- 
tunity of heaping confusion and disgrace upon our 
benighted heads, provided we are not able to maintain 
our ground. By our works alone will we be judged ; 
by them we are resolved to stand or fall. Besides, of 
all others, this plan would be the speediest for settling 
our claims, as all would be accomplished in a few 
hours. Although a challenge of this description has 

E 



66 PHRENOLOGY. 

been before the world for more than half a century, 
our adversaries have never yet come forward to the 
contest. They know full well they would soon be 
obliged to quit the field. This backwardness on their 
part is highly culpable, and altogether unjustifiable, 
because they believe we teach erroneous doctrines, 
which, in their estimation, are calculated to do irre- 
parable mischief, and are spreading like a torrent over 
a large portion of the civilised world. How can they, 
under these circumstances, with a clear conscience, 
stand aloof from the contest, when it would be such 
an easy matter to overturn our system, if resting on a 
false foundation ? 

Perhaps some parties who have seen the ^article. 
Phrenology, in the Popular Unc^dopcedia, may imagine 
I have gone too far in saying that no person has ever 
yet grappled with our facts, because it is there asserted 
that, " in one distinguished instance, the challenge has 
been accepted. Mr Stone, President of the Koyal 
Medical Society of Edinburgh, has met them on their 
own grounds, and by a series of the most indefatigable 
examinations and measurements of a vast variety of 
skulls, has proved many of their most vaunted hypo- 
theses to be erroneous and false." This is surely 
coming to the work at last, even although it is only 
*' in one distinguished instance." It is well that even 
in one instance our opponents have condescended to 
come down from their reasoning reverie, and have 



BEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 67 

stooped to the simple observation of nature. I have 
already paid my respects to Mr Stone, and have taken 
the liberty of proving, in Goyders' PJirenological An- 
nual for 1845, that he has made such a radical mistake 
in this matter as shows him to be utterly incompetent 
to perform any philosophical investigation whatever. 
Let us look at him again. 

" By comparing the crania of eighteen murderers," 
says the Encydoi^cedia^ " with two extensive [eighty 
cases] series of crania, [this is what the Encyclopcedia 
calls " indefatigable examinations and measurements 
of a vast vamety of skulls." Bless the mark ! whole 
eighteen cases compared with eighty ! I He is surely 
greatly exhausted after all this, and if he were not 
" indefatigable," he could not have survived it ! ! ! ] this 
able inquirer has undeniably shown that the crania of 
such criminals are not characterised by any superior 
development in the region of Destructiveness ; and 
that, instead of being broader, they are frequently 
much narrower than crania in general. . . . The re- 
gion of the head to which the supposed organ of 
Acquisitiveness is referred, has not been found broader 
in notorious thieves than in individuals of exemplary 
character, and sometimes even narrower — proved by the 
distance from Acquisitiveness to Acquisitiveness having 
been taken in twenty-two thieves, and compared with the 
same dimensions in various persons, English [twenty- 
eight], Scotch [twenty-five], and Irish [twenty-seven], 



6S PHEENOLOGY. 

each class of individuals having been taken without 
any selection/' Verily, it is no wonder the writer has 
kept back the record of the numbers which I have placed 
in brackets. He has spoken so big about them that I 
thought it right to get a correct record of the entire 
numbers examined. We now see what he has the 
audacity to call "a series of the most indefatigable 
examinations." Truly, the life -long labours of Gall, 
Spurzheim, and Combe, and the m.any thousand speci- 
mens collected by Yimont during a period of six years, 
and at an expense of more than 12,000 francs, are but 
as a drop in the bucket, when compared with the 
wonderful and unequalled exertions of this '' most in- 
defatigable observer " 1 ! 

Without dwelling on the fact that we have no 
evidence of Mr Stone's acquaintance with the situa- 
tion of the different organs, I may just remark that 
there is an error lying at the very foundation of his 
experiments, which renders them all perfectly value- 
less, and which proves his utter incompetency for the 
task he undertook. His observations are founded on 
the principle of comparing the absolute size of De- 
structiveness, or Acquisitiveness, in one mane's head, 
with the absolute size of the same organ in another 
man's head ; whereas he should have compared the 
absolute size of Destructiveness, or Acquisitiveness, 
in an individual head, with the absolute size of all the 
counteracting moral organs in the same head ; and 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 69 

then, having struck the balance, he should have gone 
over all the heads observed in the same way. After 
this, he would have been in a position to contrast the 
different heads. This would have been the proper 
way to do the business, but it would not have suited 
his purpose, as it would have supported the truth of 
Phrenology. His blundering here is either excessively 
stupid, or excessively perverse. There can be no ex- 
cuse for it, because it is laid down in the writings of 
Phrenologists, that a man with a very large organ of 
Destructiveness, or Acquisitiveness, may be as moral 
as any other man in the world, provided his counter- 
acting organs, such as Benevolence and Conscientious- 
ness, are in still larger development than his Destruc- 
tiveness and Acquisitiveness. The question is not, 
What is the absolute size of Destructiveness, or Ac- 
quisitiveness, in any particular case ? but. What is its 
relative size, or, in other words, its size in comparison 
with the development of all the counteracting organs 
of the same head ? A man's character is not made up 
partly from himself and partly from another man, but 
results entirely from his own individual faculties. 
Hence, we must compare one organ with another in 
the same man, if we wish to know his character, in 
place of comparing it with the same organ in his 
neighbour, as Mr Stone has done. 

In order to render this matter a little plainer to 
the inexperienced, I shall take an illustration. On 



70 PHEENOLOGY. 

applying the calipers, I have found that the organ of 
Destructiveness in the head of Eammohun Eoj, the 
great Hindoo reformer, was as near as possible the same 
size as the organ of Destructiveness in the head of 
Greenacre, the cold-blooded Edgeware Eoad murderer. 
Whence, then, such a difference in their character ? 
As the absolute size of Destructiveness was about the 
same in each, the one should be as bad as the other, 
on Mr Stone's plan of judging. It is only right, how- 
ever, to deal fairly by Phrenology, and therefore I shall 
go a little further into the matter than Mr Stone has 
done, and take a glance at the condition of the coun- 
teracting organs in each head. I shall try to ascertain 
the relative proportion which the different organs bear 
to each other in the head of the one individual, and, 
after having done the same in the other case, I shall 
draw the contrast between the two parties. On again 
applying the calipers, then, I find that the organs of 
Conscientiousness and Benevolence measure (each) 
exactly about one inch more in the head of Eam- 
mohun Eoy than in the head of Greenacre. Conse- 
quently, the disparity in their character is very easily 
understood ; and the gross inaccuracy of Mr Stone's 
plan of investigation is demonstrated. In the case of 
Eammohun Eoy, Destructiveness is far more than 
balanced by his immense Benevolence and Conscien- 
tiousness; whereas the moral organs in Greenacre's 
head are quite insignificant in comparison with his 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 71 

Destructiveness. If Mr Stone could find a cold-bloodecf 
murderer in whom the organ of Destructiveness was 
excessively deficient, whilst his organs of Benevolence 
and Conscientiousness were remarkably large, he would 
then, indeed, cut out some hard work for the Phreno- 
logist. In the meantime, however, if he had any sense, 
he would hide his diminished head. 

We are further informed, that " the posterior de- 
velopment, or quantity of brain behind the ear, to 
which region Phrenologists refer the animal propensi- 
ties, has not been found, by Mr Stone, to exhibit any 
remarkable preponderance in the crania of murder- 
ers." This statement, like others he has made, is cer- 
tainly as vague as any anti-phrenologist could make it. 
It does not refer, as it should have done, in philoso- 
phical accuracy, to any particular spot, but to the 
whole of the back of the head, in which region are 
placed the organs of Philoprogenitiveness, Amative- 
ness, Adhesiveness, Concentrativeness, Love of Appro- 
bation, and Self-esteem ; and I should like to be in- 
formed where the Phrenologist is, who states that all 
these organs must be well developed in the head of a 
murderer. I am sur23rised that any man, who is able 
to spell his own name, would venture on such loose, 
inaccurate, and unphilosophical statements as those 
put forth by Mr Stone. 

There is another mistake in Mr Stone's plan of in- 
vestigation. It will be seen, from the quotation I 



72 PHEENOLOGY. 

have already given, that in estimating the size of 
Acquisitiveness, he measured straight through the 
head, from Acquisitiveness to Acquisitiveness, in place 
of measuring from the orifice of the ear to the surface 
of Acquisitiveness, as laid down by writers on Phren- 
ology. If we wish to isolate an organ and measure its 
size, we must do it by observing the extent of its ex- 
pansion on the surface of the head, as well as by mea- 
suring its length or depth from this peripheral expan- 
sion to its origin in the region of the medulla oblongata, 
which lies opposite the orifice of the ear. For this rea- 
son, the line should be drawn, by a pair of calipers, 
from the orifice of the internal ear to the surface of 
the phrenological organ. We thus get the dimensions 
of the organ without interfering with other parts, 
whereas, on Mr Stone's plan of going right across the 
head, in place of getting the dimensions of any one 
organ, we get the breadth of the root of all the organs 
in the head where they meet in the base of the brain. 
In point of fact, Mr Stone's blundering is such, that it 
is difficult to know whether he is naturally stupid or 
wilfully perverse. If he be so stupid as not to see 
what he was about, he is incapable of dealing with any 
philosophical subject ; but if he really saw his own 
blunders, he is unworthy of confidence. As I am dis- 
posed to take a lenient view of the case, and con- 
sider his conduct the result of sheer ignorance, I 
would just recommend that he be sent to school 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 73 

for anotlier quarter, to see if anything can be made 
of him. 

Since writing my article for Goyders' Annual^ I 
have had an opportunity of perusing a very able com- 
munication from Mr George Combe to one of the 
early numbers of the Fhr etiological Journal, on Mr 
Stone's exploits. The following paragraph is so spicy 
that it must be a thorough treat to my readers: — 
" The results of his measurements and tables/' says 
Mr Combe, " show that he has proceeded on no intel- 
ligible or consistent principle whatever. They are palp- 
ably ludicrous. For example, — in discussing Hare's 
head, he says, ^ The proportion of Destructiveness to 
the size of the head is as 1 to 2-319 ; the proportion 
of Benevolence to ditto is as 1 to 2*555 ; the proportion 
of Conscientiousness to ditto is as 1 to 3 ;' that is to 
say, of Hare's head, Destructiveness constitutes within 
a small fraction of one half ; it is as 1 to 2 J^ ; Benevo- 
lence constitutes very nearly another half ; for it is as 
1 to 2J ; and Conscientiousness is exactly one third ; 
so that the size of these three organs exceeds that of 
the whole head which contains them, and all the other 
32 organs have no size whatever ! In citing this ex- 
ample, I am not taking Mr Stone at disadvantage, 
catching him tripping, as it were, in some huge cal- 
culation amidst his mighty chaos of decimals ; on the 
contrary, his whole tables present similar absurdities 
to the eye. For instance, Table 2 gives the average 



74 PHRENOLOGYc 

size of the head in 28 living Englishmen to be 13'557, 
and the average proportion of Destructiveness, Benevo- 
lence, Conscientiousness, and Acquisitiveness com- 
bined^ to the whole size of the same head to be 9*968, 
thus leaving 3-589 for the other 31 organs. It is quite 
evident that, if Mr Stone had proceeded two steps 
further in his measurement of particular organs, he 
would again have made the sum of the separate dimen- 
sions of a few organs greater than the size of the whole 
head." Bravo ! Mr Stone ; you are a clever fellow after 
all. You can do what no Phrenologist has ever at- 
tempted ; you can make the skull hold more than it is 
able to contain, and can prove that the parts are greater 
than the whole. You can pack up 32 organs of the brain 
without having any space to put them in ! Your " in- 
defatigable" experiments are invaluable. I have no 
doubt they could settle the ancient controversy 
amongst the Spirittialists, concerning the number of 
devils that could dance on the point of a needle. 
Your equal has not arisen in this generation. You 
even exceed a neighbour of mine, who firmly believes, 
when he increases the length of the furrow, by plough- 
ing the ridges in a zig-zag form, that he actually in- 
creases the quantity of land in the field ! I suppose 
it was in consideration of your being able to prove 
that the skull, after being completely filled, can hold 
32 organs more, that the Edinburgh Literary Journal^ 
for May 2, 1829, asserted that '• Mr Stone's pamphlet 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 75 

contains nothing but plain statements and incontro- 
vertible deductions '' ! ! Hurrah ! hurrah ! ! 

It is very amusing to consider the way in which 
Phrenology, which is still living, has been so often killed 
by the public press. Mr Combe very properly asks, " If 
it was refuted by Dr Gordon, why did they laud Dr Eoget 
for demolishing it ? — if Dr Koget succeeded, why did 
they praise Dr Barclay so extravagantly for subverting 
what was already overturned ? — if Dr Barclay was a 
fatal enemy, why did they extol Mr Jeffrey to the skies 
as the prince of all anti-phrenologists ? — if Jeffrey left 
no shred of the science sticking to another, why did 
they sound a loud acclaim to Sir W. Hamilton for his 
reputed victories over its scattered members? — and 
if Sir William's brows were decorated with well-earned 
laurels on account of his magnanimous achievements, 
why do they now cling to Mr Stone as if no other 
champion had tilted with success against Phrenology ? " 
Those who oppose the science would do well to imbibe 
the truly philosophic spirit of Professor Syme, who, 
though an unbeliever in Phrenology, said, in writing to 
Mr Combe, ^* I should certainly be the last person to 
ridicule or cry down the exertions of any man who 
attempts to extend the limits of our knowledge by 
observation." 

In the leading article of the London Medical Times 
and Gazette for the 15th of December 1860, the editor, 
Mr Spencer Wells, says, " This bubble (Phrenology) has 



7 6 PHRENOLOGY. 

been so often, and so demonstratively exploded, that 
we scarcely think men of science are bound any more 
to trouble their heads about it. That such a fanciful 
idea as that of reading a man's soul by the language 
of bumps on his head, should be taught and believed 
in, is nothing wonderful. What outrage on common 
sense, on natural laws, on scientific facts, will men not 
teach and men believe ? " Here, then, was a very strong 
denunciation by an eminent surgeon and the editor of 
a most important medical journal. He said that 
Phrenology had been " demonstratively " exploded. 
The use of this word placed it far beyond a mere 
matter of opinion. Being a practical science, it could 
be ''demonstratively exploded" in no other way than 
by a series of carefully and accurately observed facts. 
A practical science could not be " demonstratively " 
exploded by mere theory. The demonstration must 
result from facts. Of course I was anxious to know 
what facts had come under the observation of the 
learned editor, which enabled him to pronounce such 
a positive and sweeping judgment. I therefore wrote 
the following letter, which he kindly published in his 
journal for the 5th of January 1861 : — 

" To the editor of The Medical Times and Gazette. 
Sir, — In your leading article for the 15th of December, 
you say Phrenology is a bubble, a fanciful idea, and an 
outrage on common sense. If it be all this, it should 
immediately be exposed and banished from civilised 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 77 

society. I would not presume to criticise your re- 
marks through your own pages ; but there is one point 
which I hope you will give your readers some light 
upon. You say ' it has been often and demonstratively 
exploded.' Now, I shall feel much obliged if you will 
inform me when and by whom a practical demonstra- 
tion, adverse to Phrenology, has been made from a 
series of carefully-observed facts. If there be any 
account of them in print, I must have it. I have 
never yet seen anything of the kind, although I have 
read everything of any importance which has been 
printed against the science in Great Britain. Words 
there are plenty ; facts are more scanty than jewels. 
There is one fact, however, on the other side, with 
which I am well acquainted. My own head has been 
examined by five different Phrenologists, all strangers 
to me, in England, Ireland, and Scotland. They all 
gave almost 'identically the same traits of character, 
and drew them out with a minuteness and extreme 
accuracy which could not be attempted by the most 
intimate acquaintance I have in the world. Now, had 
these men a science to guide them, or were they in- 
spired and superhuman ? — I am, &c., 

" James C. L. Carson." 

What reply did the editor make to this note ? Here 

it is, " Our correspondent is quite entitled to hold any 

opinion he pleases concerning Phrenology, or any other 

ology or opathy ; and so also are we. We regret that 



78 PHEENOLOGY. 

we do not agree on the subject of Phrenology, but we 
have nothing to subtract from the opinion we gave of 
the so-called science in the passage to which he refers 
in his note. Neither have we either time or inclina- 
tion to enter into any discussion on the subject ; our 
mind is made up about it, just as it is made up about 
mesmerism, homoeo-quackery, or perpetual motion ; 
and besides, we know only too well where all discus- 
sions on matters wherein faith rather than reason is 
concerned, end. We, therefore, cannot oblige our cor- 
respondent by pointing out to him practical demon- 
strations of the absurdity of Phrenology." Let us just 
look at this reply. Mr Wells says he has a right to 
hold any opinion he pleases. No doubt of it ; but I 
did not ask him one word about his opinion, because 
I would not give half a farthing for the mere opinion 
of any man on earth on a question which can be settled 
only by practice. He made the assertion that Phren- 
ology was demonstratively exploded. All I asked was 
the record of the practical observations on which the 
demonstration was founded. If any such had been 
made, he could easily have referred to them and 
pointed them out. If no such observations had ever 
been made, his attack upon Phrenology, and conse- 
quently on Phrenologists, was as uncalled for as it was 
unfounded, and he was honourably bound to retract 
his assertion. Such, however, has been the sort of 
treatment Phrenology has ever met with at the hands 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 79 

of its opponents. Their opposition is grounded on a 
mere bundle of opinions^ which must be swallowed for 
no other reason than because they and their ancestors 
have held them, I am greatly surprised that so emi- 
nent a surgeon as Mr Spencer Wells would place him- 
self in such a humiliating position. He^ of all men, as 
the opponent of Dr Eobert Lee on Ovariotomy, ought 
to know that mere opinion is of no value against a prac- 
tical science. If he looks to his own journal for Feb- 
ruary 23d, 1861, he will see that Mr Thomas Bryant 
states, at the Medical and Chirurgical Society, ^Hhat 
the science of medicine and surgery was one purely of 
observation, and that its principles and practice could 
only be regarded as sound so long as they were based 
on facts, the result of recorded and carefully-observed 
phenomena.'* Now, if any person had been foolish 
enough to start up and oppose these sensible observa- 
tions of Mr Bryant's, by merely giving it as his opinion 
from theoretical grounds, that medicine and surgery 
were a bubble, and had no foundation in truth, and 
could not in his opinion bear comparison with homceo- 
pathy, what would the editor of the Gazette have said 
to him ? Would the objector not have caught it in 
good style in the next number of the journal ? Would 
his opinion not have been set down, and properly set 
down, as not worth a moment's consideration in the 
scale against well-ascertained facts ? And if the dis- 
pute were continued, would it not have to be settled 



80 PHRENOLOGY. 

by a reference to facts, and facts alone ? To be sure it 
would. Why, then, is Phrenology to be treated in a 
different manner from all other subjects ? Why is it 
to be always opposed by theory, and its facts, or 
alleged facts if you will, cast aside as unworthy of 
investigation ? 

The editor of the Gazette says he has no inclination 
to enter into any discussion on the subject. I never 
asked him to enter on a discussion. So far from that, 
I said, *' I would not presume to criticise your remarks 
through your own pages." I know full well, no 
editor will carry on a discussion, in his own journal, 
with his correspondents. I asked not for a discussion ; 
but I asked for a far more troublesome affair,— ^Ae 
record ofthefacts^ — the record of facts which never had 
an existence ! This was a poser to him ; and he was 
obliged to acknowledge that he could not point out 
*^ practical demonstrations of the absurdity of Phreno- 
logy." Why, then, was he so reckless as to assert it 
was " demonstratively exploded " ? Why did he make 
this assertion,— an assertion which he has couched in 
language most derogatory to all Phrenologists,~with- 
out having the shadow of a foundation to rest it on ? 
Shame ! shame ! He talks about faith and reason ; 
but in his case it is all faith and no reason. Is it not 
absurd to talk about reason, when he attempts to cast 
aside a practical science, although he has not been able 
to allege a single particle of practical evidence as the 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 81 

basis of his opposition? What reason does such a 
course unfold ? None whatever. It is slavish and 
blind credulity. " Truly," says the Eclectic Revievj^ for 
July 1861, " the credulities of ignorance are amusing ; 
but for the most amusing evidence of the flights of 
credulity, we have to turn to the achievements of 
speculative savans." 

If a man be not acquainted with the facts of a case, 
he has a perfect right to suspend his judgment, and 
call for proofs. Under these circumstances he is not 
bound to give an opinion on the one side or the other. 
He is not only not bound to decide, but real philosophy 
demands that he should not decide in his state of 
ignorance. His judgment should be completely sus- 
pended. The editor of the Gazette, however, is not in 
this position. His credulity is so great that he believes 
what he has read, or been told on the subject, and 
decides against the science without knowing the facts. 
He says it has been demonstratively exploded, although 
he is not able to point to a single demonstration on 
the subject. If he had said the evidence in its favour, 
after a careful practical examination, did not appear to 
him sufficient to establish it, no person would have a 
right to complain. But when he says it is demonstra- 
tively exploded, without being able to point to a 
single fact on which the demonstration rests, he places 
himself in a position wdiich is as unphilosophical as it 

is inaccurate. 

F 



82 PHRENOLOGY. 

As a matter of amusement, as well as instruction, I 
may refer to a paragraph from the learned gentleman 
who understands so well the province of " faith " and 
" reason," as it appears on the 497th page of the Medical 
Times and Gazette for May 11th, 1861. " The art of 
teaching," says the editor, " is a special gift, which may 
or may not be superadded to a sound practical know- 
ledge of the subject to be taught. A man may be a 
first-rate anatomist, and yet be unable to teach even 
the rudiments in clear, intelligible language, in due 
order, and without confusion." No statement could 
be more correct, or more important in a practical point 
of view, than this ; and the facts are capable of a very 
simple and satisfactory explanation on Phrenological 
principles. But my business, at present, is rather to 
deal with the explanation of the learned editor. *^ It 
is no doubt owing to the fact," he continues, '' that the 
regularly-appointed professors in the medical schools 
have not always the logical faculties requisite for good 
teachers, that a system of private tutorship has become 
not merely popular, but necessary, to men of slow 
brains and inadequate general education." Let us 
analyse these statements. " The art of teaching is a 
special gift." There must, then, of necessity, be a 
special faculty either in the brain or in the mind. If 
it be in the brain, it will accord with Phrenology ; but 
if in the mind, the mind must be divisible into dif- 
ferent faculties, and therefore material and mortal. 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. S3 

What " ology " do you call this, Mr Editor ? Again, 
you say a man may be able to take m the knowledge 
in first-rate style, without being able to give it out in 
an intelligible manner. Are these gifts not distinct I 
Do they not depend on distinct faculties ? If you place 
them in the brain, you slide into Phrenology ; but if 
you put them in the mind, you make it compound, 
divisible, and material. What " ology " do you belong 
to now, Mr Editor % Further, the professors have the 
faculty for acquiring knowledge, but they have not the 
" logical faculties for good teachers." A complete dis- 
tinction is here made between the faculties for acquir- 
ing information and the logical faculties. Conse- 
quently, if these distinct, separate, and perhaps 
opposite, faculties are in the mind, the mind must be 
compound and material. What '' ology " are you at 
now, Mr Editor ? Finally^ this " logical faculty " is 
necessary for those who teach men who have "slow 
brains." How will the logical faculty of the teacher 
make the slow brain of the pupil go fast ? I could 
form some idea of an active brain exciting the energies 
of a slow one ; but I cannot see what the logical faculty 
has to do with it. It is not the greatest logician who is 
the best teacher. Surely the slow brain of the pupil 
would require a logical faculty in itself to be roused by 
the logical faculty of the quick-brained teacher. 

The editor of the Gazette, in reply to my note, says 
regarding Phrenology : " Our mind is made up about 



84 PHRENOLOGY. 

it, just as it is made up about mesmerism, homcEO- 
quackery, or perpetual motion." That is just the 
secret. It is never the want of evidence prevents any 
man from believing the truth. His mind is made up, 
and therefore he will not investigate. His early edu- 
cation, predilections, and prejudices, prevent him from 
giving that careful attention to new views and new 
subjects which^ in many instances, their importance 
demands. His mind is made up ; he steels himself 
hard and fast against the truth. To convert such men 
is nearly impossible. The conduct of Mr Wells in re- 
gard to Phrenology is just on a par with that of Dr 
Eobert Lee in relation to ovariotomy. In each case the 
mind is made up, and practical evidence has no weight. 
Preconceived opinions cannot be got rid of. There is 
no man so blind as the man who closes his eyes against 
proper investigation. He is almost in a hopeless con- 
dition. Without being able to refer to any practical 
demonstration on the subject, Mr Wells rejects Phren- 
ology in the most contemptuous terms, although it is 
a science which professes to rest entirely on observa- 
tion, and consequently cannot be overturned by theory. 
In this case he is just as devoid of a truly philosophic 
spirit as Dr Eobert Lee is in opposing ovariotomy. As 
Dr Savage remarks, {Lancet, Nov. 1862:) "Dr Lee 
never would see the operation of ovariotomy done. 
He (Dr Savage) had asked him to come and see a case, 
but Dr Lee said he would rather not. Dr Lee had ex- 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 85 

pressed strong opinions against ovariotomy, and he did 
not ^Yant to see anything which could alter his opinions." 
Dr Lee replied, " It was true that he had never per- 
formed the operation of ovariotomy on the living 
body, that he had never sanctioned its performance, 
and that he had never seen it performed by others." 
Such is the condition of the man who has given this 
operation all the opposition in his power ! To such 
parties practical evidence is of little use. Old opinions 
are far superior to newly-discovered facts. The history 
of ovariotomy, like the history of all other practical 
innovations, is full of instruction. It was referred to 
by " De Haen as an operation of which it would not do 
to talk, lest some reckless surgeon should attempt its 
performance ; and by Scanzoni as a proof of madness 
in the patient who should adopt, and of crime in the 
surgeon who should abet, such a mode of suicide ; and 
again energetically denounced by Velpeau as an opera- 
tion on no account to be admitted into French surgery." 
And finally, it has met the bitterest opposition in 
London from Dr Eobert Lee. It is satisfactory to 
know, however, that, after all this, it has been fairly 
submitted to the only proper test — the practical test — 
and its triumph is complete. Thanks to Dr Clay, Mr 
Spencer AYells, Dr Tyler Smith, and Mr Baker Brown, 
it is now estabhshed as an operation which adds lustre 
to the brilliancy of British surgery. Like many other 
things, in theory it looked bad, but in practice it has 



S^ PHRENOLOGY. 

turned out well. It is a far less dangerous operation 
than amputation of the thigh and leg. The recoveries 
actually amount to 76 per cent, of those operated on, 
{Lancetj Feb. 25, 1865 ;) whereas Mr Erichsen shows 
{Medical Gazette, Dec. 20^ 1862) that the recoveries 
after amputation of the lower extremity, at Guy's 
Hospital, do not exceed, in all classes, 50 per cent. 
Dr Lee's opposition to ovariotomy, and Mr Spencer 
Wells's theoretical denunciation of a practical science 
like Phrenology, are about as sensible as the statement 
of Velpeau, who accounted for the greater success which 
followed surgical operations in the London than in the 
French hospitals, by asserting that it was owing to " a 
kind of immunity in favour of the flesh of the English, 
which, by some kind of physiological privilege, is more 
refractory than is French flesh to the accidents which 
follow great operations." — {Medical Times andj Gazette, 
Dec. 14, 1861). It is really wonderful how men of 
great ability can sometimes place themselves in ridi- 
culous positions. No man should ever oppose a prac- 
tical subject without having first submitted it to a 
careful, close, and fair practical investigation. 

In the Phrenological Journal for 1829, Mr Combe 
cites a melancholy example of opposition to opinions 
which are new, in the case of Mr Dugald Stewart, who, 
in writing on the 15th of June 1820, to Dr Poole, re- 
garding Dr Thomas Brown's metaphysical views, says : 
" May I add to this, that, not having taken up very 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 87 

lightly my philosophical opinions, I cannot afford to 
waste my time in the study of new theories, which 
profess to accomplish a complete revolution in that 
branch of science to which I have devoted the best 
part of my life. I must, therefore, during my few 
remaining years, content myself with plodding on in 
the beaten track, and with treading, as far as I can, in 
the footsteps of those humbler guides whom it has 
hitherto been my ambition to follow.^' This is the 
man who cried, " Is there no Arbuthnot now to chastise 
the follies of our modern Craniologists ?" This is the 
man who, when called to account for his exclamation 
by Sir George S. Mackenzie, Bart., peremptorily refused 
to say a word on the subject, " as his own opinions, 
whatever they are, have been the result of too much 
reflection to be easily changed, and he must leave it 
to those who come after him to judge of their truth." 
This is the man who would not even examine Dv 
Thomas Brown's new views on his own favourite sub- 
ject, metaphysics, because his mind was made up, and 
he would not trouble himself about those new views 
which, if true, would uproot his previous opinions. 
Is it not wonderful that people of common sense should 
be influenced by the opinions of such a man ? Not- 
withstanding his neglect of Dr Brown's views, Dr 
Brown's theories have been read by the whole meta- 
physical world since ; and notwithstanding his refusal 
to discuss Phrenology with Sir George Mackenzie, we 



88 PHEENOLOGY. 

can still bid a proud defiance to all those who would 
" chastise our follies." 

No man who knows poor human nature would ex- 
pect all men to become Phrenologists. Some could not 
bear to have their own failings discovered ; some would 
not change, even if they knew they were wrong ; some 
would not believe anything which is new ; and some of 
those who fill professors' chairs would not sacrifice 
their worldly interests. As Andral, the great French 
pathologist, has observed, " Some one must be put to 
inconvenience in the progress of Phrenology, and few 
people are fond of being set aside. It has, moreover, 
the great fault of being younger than those whom it 
pretends to enlighten ; but let it alone, and it will soon 
throw all obstacles behind it with marvellous force." 
A gentleman came to Coleraine about twenty-seven 
years ago, to deliver lectures on Phrenology and 
examine heads. There was a clergyman at that time 
in the district who had been dabbling a little in the 
science, and had even gone the length of passing his 
fingers over some people's heads. He called on me, 
and asked me to go with him to the Phrenologist, in 
order to have his head examined as a test of the science. 
I said, if that were his object he had better put on a 
black neck-tie, and go quite alone. He did so, and 
asked me to stay in the house till he would return to 
show me the written character. To this I agreed, as I 
thought it would not occupy more than half an hour. 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 89 

After waiting three or four hours, however, I went out 
to see what had become of him. To my great surprise 
I found him engaged in an angry discussion with the 
Phrenologist. The character he got was not nearly so 
good as he wished, and he was in a regular passion. 
But the Phrenologist maintained that it was an exact 
description of the head, and he would not alter it for 
any man. The clergyman referred the whole matter 
to me. I read the character, and pronounced it to be 
perfectly correct. By this decision I was at once placed 
on the back of the books. He said there was a lady in 
town who was well acquainted with him, and he would 
refer it to her. Accordingly he did so ; and she said 
she had always thought Phrenology to be nonsense, but 
she was wonderfully struck with the extreme accuracy 
of this delineation, and thought there must be some 
truth in the science. After all, the clergyman was so 
much disappointed with the examination of his own 
head, that he said Phrenology was a humbug, and he 
would never believe in it again. 

^'Xo one," says Professor Caldwell of America, "has 
ever thoroughly studied the details of Phrenology, by 
a faithful examination of man as he is, without arriving 
at a conviction of their truth. If such an instance has 
ever occurred, it has been in some individual whose 
cerebral developments were unfavourable — in plainer 
English, whose head was badly formed. Neither 
Homer's Thersites, whose cranium was ^ misshapen/ 



90 PHRENOLOGY. 

nor any of Shakspeare's personages, with ^foreheads 
villainously low,' could have been easily proselyted to 
the doctrines of Phrenology. The reason is obvious. 
Their own heads would not have ^ passed muster.' 
Their belief, therefore, would have been self-condem- 
natory. As the hump-backed, knock-kneed, and bandy- 
legged, have an instinctive hostility to the science of 
gymnastics, it is scarcely to be expected that the fiat- 
heads, apple-heads, and sugar-loaf heads will be favour- 
ably disposed to that of Phrenology. Nor will those 
whose brains are so ponderous behind and light before 
that their heads seem in danger of tilting backwards." 
" Were Phrenology an established science," says the 
Popular Encyclopoedia, " and were it possible to draw 
unerring deductions from the data which it lays down, 
it cannot be denied that its discovery would be the 
greatest step ever made in mental philosophy, and its 
application the most beneficial ever used for the ame- 
lioration of the human race. It would give man a 
knowledge of himself, and direct him in the application 
of the faculties with which he might be endowed. By 
disclosing individual character, it would give security 
to social intercourse, and make communication prompt 
and easy. It would disclose real merit and expose un- 
worthiness. The truly wise and good would at last 
attain their proper station in society, while the ignorant 
and vicious would be obliged to hide their diminished 
heads. To parents the science would be of invaluable 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 91 

service, in directing them as to the proper moral and 
intellectual training of their children ; nor would any 
difficulty longer exist regarding the choice of a profes- 
sion — no one, in future, would be made a lawyer who 
should have been a painter, nor a clergyman, who should 
have been a fiddler." 

After such a statement as this, a person would 
naturally expect that the writer would have ransacked 
every possible source of human knowledge, in order to 
see whether Phrenology was founded on truth or not ; 
and more especially as the science always professed to 
rest exclusively on observation, it would at once be 
concluded that he would have acceded, with the utmost 
readiness and delight, to the invitations of the Phren- 
ologists, to examine it practically. Marvellous to 
relate, however, — incredibly marvellous to relate ! — he 
confesses " that the opponents of Phrenology have re- 
sponded little to this invitation. They have been so 
satisfied with the overwhelming arguments adduced 
against the system, from almost every point of mental 
and physical philosophy, that they have left the manip- 
ulation of heads and handling of skulls and casts 
to the Phrenologists themselves." What! what!! 
what ! ! ! Can it be possible he has thrown overboard 
a subject he confesses to be so extremely important, 
without ever taking the trouble of carefully examin- 
ing the very foundation on which it rests ? Such 
conduct is truly marvellous. Moreover such a mode 



92' PHRENOLOGY. 

of procedure is not confined to himself, because, ac- 
cording to his own showing, all the opponents of 
Phrenology have done the same, with the single excep- 
tion of the " one distinguished instance," Mr Stone. 
In place of examining the matter for himself, in its 
practical details, the Encyclopsedist has rested satisfied 
with the false reports, distorted statements, and 
downright misrepresentations of the opponents of the 
science. In this respect he forcibly reminds me of the 
opponents of vaccination, who, as may be seen by 
referring to the second volume of Sir J. Y. Simpson's 
Obstetric Memoirs, adopted a similar course in an 
attempt to overturn Jenner's discovery. For example, 
'' I have," said Dr Moseley, " seen children die of the 
cow-pox without losing the sense of torment^even in the 
article of death ; '^ and Dr Kowley speaks of " parents 
being robbed of their serenity, and the minds of 
tender mothers being wrung with eternal suspense 
. . . whilst a few projectors or visionists are pursuing 
their deleterious projects on human victims. ... In 
fact the senses are appalled, and the pen is tired of 
recording its dreadful disasters. . . . This boy is 
gradually losing the human lineaments, and his coun- 
tenance is transmuting into the visage of a cow." 
" Cow-pox," said Drew and Forrester, " is a far more 
severe disease than small-pox." Some, after vaccin- 
ation, were said to " cough like cows," and " bellow 
like bulls." And so great is the credulity attendant 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. .93 

upon ignorance, even in what is called the highest 
walks of scientific life, that these direct misrepresent- 
ations and fabulous reports were all but universally 
believed for a considerable time. Would that men 
would learn a lesson from the history of the past ! 

The writer in the Encyclopcedia has been so satisfied 
with the overwhelming arguments adduced against a 
practical system, that he does not think it necessary 
to examine it practically ! What confidence could any 
rational being place in the opinions of such wretched, 
miserable, unphilosophical theorists ? They are not 
one whit better than the disciples of Galen and Aris- 
totle, previously referred to. Can mere argument 
overturn observable facts ? Is the Baconian philoso- 
j)hy exploded in the nineteenth century ? Is observa- 
tion no longer the foundation of scientific investigation ? 
Are we to be once more buried in the interminable 
meshes of speculation and theory % Have we actually 
returned to the dark ages ? Shame ! Oh, shame ! 
upon the man who neglects or despises observation 
and attempts to trample it underfoot by refusing its 
assistance ! He is unworthy of being reasoned with, 
and is only fit to be lashed with ridicule. The Phren- 
ologist should consider himself highly honoured when 
such men declare that ^^ fool and Phrenologist are 
synonymous terms." Praise from them would indeed 
be the highest censure. 

Our theorising opponents remind us of Bishop 



94 PHRENOLOGY. 

Berkeley. Observation was of no use to him ; but still 
his speculations produced a great effect on the men of 
his day, — even on those who passed for being learned. 
He reasoned himself so far out of his common sense as 
actually to deny we had any proof of the existence of 
matter. He was not sure there was such a thing as 
the world he walked on. If he had not belonged to 
the list of so-called philosophers, he would certainly 
have been placed in an asylum. He was one day taught 
a good practical lesson, however, by a gentleman whom 
he went to visit. As the gentleman sat at his drawing- 
room window, he saw the bishop walking up the 
avenue under a perfect torrent of rain. He immedi- 
ately directed his servants to keep out of the way and 
on no account to open the door. The bishop reached 
the door and gave a tremendous knock. The owner of 
the house put his head out of the drawing-room window 
and politely requested the bishop to walk in out of the 
rain. " I cannot get in," said the bishop, " for the door 
is shut." " Walk in, walk in ; " said the other, " you 
are under a great mistake ; there is no door there ; 
you are aware we have no evidence of the existence of 
matter ; you have no evidence of any door being there ; 
just walk in out of the rain." The bishop was thus 
completely caught by the folly of his own philosophy. 
Now, here was a man who was universally considered, 
by his theorising contemporaries, as one of the greatest 
philosophers of his day ; and yet we find him brought 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 95 

down to the level of a mere simpleton, or I should 
rather say below it, by a person who was under the 
influence of plain, practical, common sense. It would 
be well if the enemies of Phrenology would take warn- 
ing by his example, and cease to revel in the wild mazes 
of pure speculation. 

In the SECOND place, I remark that God, who is the 
Author of the Bible, is also the Creator of man and of 
every material object in the universe ; and as a neces- 
sary consequence of this, there can be no real jarring 
between the Book of Eevelation and the wide field of 
natui^. The one has nothing to fear from the other, 
as they both come from that Infallible Beiog who has 
arranged all things in perfect harmony with each other. 
They are both infallible witnesses for truth, and there- 
fore can never falsify each other's testimony. To fear 
any evil consequences from an unfolding of those laws 
by which God works in the material world, is a being 
wiser than, and a direct dishonouring of, God himself. 
On the contrary, the more we study His works, the 
more harmony and beauty do we discover in them 
— the more are we disposed, if we are Christians, to 
adore and venerate the great Being who has formed 
them all in such admirable perfection — and the more 
will we see their accordance with, bearing upon, and 
proof of, those great and glorious truths which are 
revealed in the Scriptures. At the same time, it 
behoves us, in the interpretation of either the book 



96 PHRENOLOGY. 

of Nature or of Eevelation, to see that our opinions 
rest upon a sure and well-ascertained foundation, in 
place of being the result, as thej often are, of our own 
weak and foolish imaginations. We should never draw 
hasty conclusions, nor yet follow the example of the 
one class, which forces Scripture to bend to science, 
nor of the other, which compels science to yield to 
Scripture. Such a course is as unphilosophical as it 
is injurious. When rightly understood, science and 
Scripture cannot possibly contradict each other. If 
the one required to yield to the other, in the way they 
are generally made to do, their Author could not be 
perfect. When a contradiction occurs, it will be found 
to be owing to hasty conclusions from imperfect data, 
ignorance of facts, or a spurious and infidel philosophy. 
There can be but one way of correctly interpreting 
Scripture, and that is by a strict adherence to the laws 
of language. It is impossible that one passage can 
have two literal meanings directly the reverse of each 
other. The Sacred Writings are not like the oracle at 
Delphi. If two meanings, contradicting each other, 
are given, one of them must necessarily be a false 
interpretation, otherwise the Bible would be no better 
than an Act of Parliament, through which Mr O'Connell 
said he could drive a coach and four. The Scriptures 
can be proved by irrefragable evidence to be the word 
of the living God, and as such they must be perfect, 
and are capable of bearing a proper and truthful inter- 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 97 

pretation. But, alas ! how many have read the Bible, 
and have wilfully misunderstood its doctrines and 
precepts, and, spurred on by their own evil imagina- 
tions and wicked dispositions, have endeavoured to 
overturn, or explain away, the plainest portions of 
Scriptui-e ! Because wicked and perverse men have 
dealt thus with the Word of the Most High God, are 
we to reject the Scripture as a mere fiction, which is 
calculated only to deceive blind and infatuated mortals ? 
By no means. This would be a silly mode of procedure. 
Let it rather be the means of spurring us forward 
to learn with more avidity all those truths which are 
revealed in the Bible, in order that we may be able to 
prove to the world that the system of Christianity is 
true, and also that we may be thoroughly prepared to 
refute, from Scripture, those daring attempts of infi- 
delity which would never hesitate to wrest the language 
of inspiration for the purpose of propping up a favourite 
system, or, perhaps, would even go so far as to under- 
mine everything which is calculated to give comfort 
and consolation in the hour of final trial, when the 
bosom is about to heave the sigh which will usher the 
immortal soul into the realm of spirits. 

If we are candid inquirers after truth, we will adopt 
a somewhat similar ijourse regarding Phrenology. Let 
us first inquire if it has well-ascertained facts to rest 
upon. If such be the case, we should fearlessly avow 

it, knowing then that it comes from the Hand which 

G 



98 PHRENOLOGY. 

created the universe, and has stamped perfection upon 
all His works. Let us cultivate the science, in order 
that we may be able to separate the wheat from the 
chafip, and thereby be prepared to overturn that baneful 
system of doctrine which some men have endeavoured 
to deduce from Phrenology, but which is not, by any 
means, necessarily connected therewith, and for which, 
consequently, Phrenology has no right whatever to be 
made responsible. This point has been ably handled 
by the late Mr Scott of Edinburgh, who, while he was a 
devoted Christian, was also a distinguished Phrenolo- 
gist. His work is called " The Harmony of Phrenology 
with Scripture ; shown in a refutation of the Philoso- 
phical errors contained in Mr Combe's Constitution of 
Manr 

I think it necessary to draw attention to the mistake 
which is being constantly made by our opponents and 
the general public, in confounding Phrenology with 
the ^culiar opinions which are developed by Mr 
Combe in his Constitution of Man, As one example 
of this, I may refer to what was said at a meeting of 
Independent ministers in Manchester, as it is reported 
in the Manchester Guardian for 30th December 1843 : 
" The Kev. J. W. Massy took occasion to condemn, in 
strong terms, the philosophy inculcated in Combe's 
Constitution of Man, and characterised the daily and 
hebdomadal press of this country as the vehicle for 
conveying the poison of Combe's system of philosophy 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 99 

tlirougliout the length and breadth of the land. It 
was high time that our schoolmasters should be able 
to grapple with this insidious system, and until they 
were able to show the dry-rot of Phrenology, they 
would not be prepared to grapple with it." Here Dr 
Massy confounds Phrenology with Combe's Constitution 
of Man, He makes the one responsible for the errors 
of the other. This, however, is a great mistake, and I 
regret Dr Massy has fallen into it after the example of 
the multitude. He could hardly have fallen into this 
error if he had read the preface to the work, in which 
Mr Combe says, "Taken separately, I would hardly 
say that a new truth has been presented in the follow- 
ing work. The facts have nearly all been admitted, 
and employed again and again, by writers on morals, 
from the time of Socrates down to the present day." 
It surely is not fair to charge Phrenology with the 
consequences of opinions which were held long before 
it was discovered. It has no right whatever to answer 
for them, unless it can be shown that they necessarily 
and inevitably result from it, — a thing which I defy 
any man on earth to prove. Whilst I have the very 
highest respect for Mr Combe as a Phrenologist, I will 
yield to no man in my anxiety to bear testimony against 
the antichristian principles which are put forth in nearly 
all his writings. I wish it to be remembered that I 
advocate Phrenology, not Phrenologists. It is as in- 
consistent to charge Phrenology with all the wild 
L.ci V. 



100 PHRENOLOGY. 

theories of its adherents, as it would be to make the 
Bible responsible for the errors of those who call them- 
selves Christians. To do so, is as unphilosophical as 
it is absurd. 

If I agreed with the religious public in believing 
that Mr Combe's sentiments on Moral Philosophy 
and Christianity are the necessary result of Phren- 
ology, I would deal with the matter in a very different 
way from what they have done. Their conduct is 
cowardly and irrational. In place of warning the 
community against the consequences of belief, and 
ignorantly abusing the system by any and every 
means, I would go right at the foundation at once. I 
would bring Phrenology to the test of practice, and if 
it were then made out to be without a certain foun- 
dation in nature, I would heave it, and all its conse- 
quences, overboard once and for ever. This would be 
the rational way of settling its pretensions, and it 
would save the advocates of Christianity from being 
looked upon with perfect contempt by philosophers. 
But, on the other hand, if I found that the truth of 
Phrenology could be demonstrated, beyond doubt, by 
practical observation, I would receive it as coming 
from the hands of my Maker, let the consequences be 
what they might. I would make no whining about it, 
as I know that God cannot err. 

In the THIRD and last place, I remark that most of 
our opponents maintain there is a connexion between 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. lOl 

the soul and tlie body ; — that the body is the habita- 
tion or receptacle of the soul ; — and that it is through 
the body the soul has communication with the external 
world. The only difference between us then is, that 
we consider certain portions of the brain are used in 
connexion with certain mental manifestations, whilst 
they extend the operation to the whole brain, or the 
whole body. Now, I ask, is there any more difficulty 
in the one case than in the other ? If our doctrines 
involve materialism, it is as plain as the light of heaven 
that theirs must do the same, as there is no difference 
whatever between us except in the relative size of the 
organs in use. Dr Spurzheim has well remarked that 
the question of materialism is essentially the same, 
whether we suppose the mind to act through the whole 
body, the whole brain, or some particular part of the 
brain. It is still mind in connexion with matter. " It 
is evident," says Gall, " that one party, as well as the 
other, subjects the faculties of the soul to material 
conditions ; and, consequently, were this language 
sufficient to charge me with materialism, the same 
charge would apply to all physicians, all philosophers, 
and all the fathers of the Church." It is rather amus- 
ing to find that Professor Walter of Berlin, in the same 
passage in which he charges Phrenology with material- 
ism, states that the brain " must have a certain degree 
of firmness and elasticity, that the soul may manifest 
itself with great splendour." Language such as this 



102 PHRENOLOGY, 

is all safe and unobjectionable when used by the 
physiologist, but the moment a Phrenologist adopts it^ 
it becomes rank materialism ! I once had a conversa- 
tion with a learned gentleman who had such a whole- 
some dread of confining the soul to a material taber- 
nacle, that he thought it formed a sort of atmosphere 
around the body, and that its density varied with the 
square of the distance. He forgot, however, that den- 
sity is essentially a property of matter, and thus over- 
looked the fact that his anxiety to avoid materialism 
drove him into the very heart of it. He showed nearly 
as much sense, however, as another of our opponents, 
Professor Ackermann of Heidelberg, who considers 
there is " an extremely subtle, nervous medulla, soft 
and almost fluid, which converts itself by degrees in 
the cavities of the brain into animal vapour, and which 
becomes a medium between the soul and the nerves 
of sense." — (Gall.) What will the anti-phrenologists 
end with ! There seems to be no limit to their 
theoretical inventions. 

In place of systematically discussing the question of 
materialism here, I shall take it up from time to time 
as I proceed with my subject. This is the method 
which will render the argument the most interesting 
to the reader. In the meantime, however, it is neces- 
sary to make a few observations on the question of 
human responsibility. 

No person in his senses would expect Phrenology 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 103 

to be responsible for the settlement of a question, which 
has puzzled and perplexed the greatest philosophers, 
and the most profound theologians the world has ever 
produced. The accountability of man has been a bone 
of contention in every age, and, in all probability, will 
be so to the end of time. Hence it would be quite 
unreasonable to imagine that Phrenology is called on 
to settle and explain this most difficult subject. The 
Phrenologist has no more to say to it than any of his 
neighbours. He just leaves it where he found it, 
without making it one whit better or worse. When 
the anti-phrenologist removes all the difficulty, the 
Phrenologist will do the same. The explanation which 
will suit the one will be equally applicable for the 
other. Hence, as a starting point, I demand an indis- 
putable solution on the part of my opponents, and 
when it is produced I undertake to prove that it 
suits me as well as them. From the way this question 
has been raised against Phrenology, a person would 
imagine that the anti-phrenologist either had no dif- 
ficulty whatever in solving it, or had nothing to do 
with it. The truth is, however, it lies equally at the 
door of all men. It does not make the slightest 
difference whether the matter is referred to the eyes, 
the hands, the brain, or the mind. If it be anywhere 
in nature it is all the same. On the supposition of 
there being a natural proneness to evil in man as we 
find him, it does not signify one snuff whether it is to 



104 phrenology/ 

be found in bis mind or his body. The solution of 
his accountability is just as difficult in the one case as 
in the other ; and the explanation which could clear it 
up on the one supposition, would do it equally well on 
the other. A person, if he choose to run counter to 
revelation, may deny altogether the natural depravity 
of man ; but if he admit the depravity, he will not find 
the slightest difference in explaining the accountability, 
whether he places it in the mind or the body. It is 
all alike, if it be there at all. Hence, the Phrenologist 
has no right to grapple with this question till his 
opponents have settled it first on their own principles. 
After they have done this, he is fairly called upon to 
show that the explanation will accord with his system. 
When my opponents settle it, I will undertake to settle 
it also. 

After all, the Phrenologist, perhaps, has less difficulty 
'on this point than the metaphysician. Throwing aside, 
by consent of all parties, the lunatic and the idiot, we 
have to deal only with the case of the perfectly rational 
creature. Supposing we place his intellectual, moral, 
and animal faculties all in the brain, what then ? 
Surely the intellectual and moral faculties must have 
some controlling power over the animal propensities. 
We have certain evidence of this fact even in the case 
of the very worst criminals, as we know that their 
crimes have been committed only occasionally. If they 
have been able to avoid the crime for ten or twenty 



REPLY TO OBJECTIOXS. 105 

years, there can be no reason, as far as tlie divisions of 
the brain are concerned, why they might not avoid it 
still. Under these circumstances, it can hardly be 
considered as absolutely irresistible. Supposing a man 
to be prone to murder, and that he is about to commit 
the deed, he will instantly desist at the sight of a few 
policemen. Hence, the act is not absolutely inevitable ; 
and this fact, which is undeniable, leads us to see that 
there is a great difference between the propensity to, 
and the power for, the commission of a crime, and the 
absolute necessity for its performance. In fact, every 
man must feel that he is naturally disposed to the 
commission of crimes or sins of which he is never 
guilty. Although he is inclined to do them, he is 
restrained by other faculties. In short, Phrenology 
is much more simple on this subject than Metaphysics. 
It merely finds that the brain is divided into distinct 
faculties, or organs, and that the mind can use one or 
more of these organs at a time as the case may require, 
just in the same way as it can use the hands, eyes, or 
feet. Besides, in looking at the question of accounta- 
bility, we must remember that every intellectual and 
moral organ is to be found in the brain of every man 
who is not an idiot. A person would imagine, from 
the conduct of our opponents, that the criminaFs head 
is composed exclusively of propensities. This, how- 
ever, is in no instance the case. There is always a 
development of the counteracting organs ; and the 



106 PHRENOLOGY. 

great difference between the criminal and well-balanced 
head, is to be found in the fact, that the propensities 
bear a much larger proportion to the amount of the 
moral faculties in the depraved than in the well-dis- 
posed man. It is a question of degree, not of absolute 
want. No man above the level of an idiot is to be 
found entirely wanting in those cerebral organs which 
balance and control the propensities. He may be bad 
in comparison with his neighbour in this respect, but 
he is never left absolutely without controlling organs. 
Hence, as far as the divisions of his brain merely are 
concerned, I cannot see how his propensities are totally 
and entirely irresistible. In short, we know that they 
are not absolutely irresistible, from the fact that the 
criminal resists them during the greater portion of his 
life, and only yields occasionally. This demonstrates 
beyond question that they are not absolutely irresist- 
ible. If we wish to arrive at the true cause of man's 
proneness to evil, in place of locating it in the division 
of the brain which the Phrenologist has pointed out, 
we must go a step higher. We must at once adopt the 
principle, that the taint is to be found in the fact, that 
man since the fall is utterly injured and depraved in 
every faculty and imaginable feature of his entire 
nature. This is the only true way of getting at it, but 
for this Phrenology is in no way accountable. I hold 
firmly by this doctrine, not as a Phrenologist, but as a 
believer in revelation. Phrenology is quite compatible 



EEPLY TO OBJECTION'S. 107 

with the fall and consequent natural depravity of man ; 
but it can neither be made responsible for it, nor asked 
to account for it. It has no more to say to it than 
has Physiology, Pathology, or any other science which 
makes the body, either in part or in whole, the instru- 
ment through which the mind acts. They are all alike 
in this respect, as they all connect the operations of 
mind in some way or other with corporeal organs. 

The fall of man ; his consequent natural and utter 
depravity ; his constant proneness to evil, even in his 
highest state ; his inability, by nature, to do good ; 
his irresistible necessity towards evil ; and his perfect 
accountability to God, are doctrines which I most 
surely hold. They are doctrines, however, which can 
never be learned from, or accounted for by, natural 
science. They do not come within the pale of natural 
philosophy in any of its branches. They belong exclu- 
sively to the domain of revelation. Nothing could be 
more certain than that the Scripture plainly teaches 
that man^ since the fall, is necessarily and inevitably 
prone to evil, whilst, at the same time, he is held ac- 
countable to God for all his actions. The man must 
deny the use of his senses who cannot see these two 
things in revelation. If we are called on to explain or 
reconcile them, we must at once confess our inability 
to do so. It is a point which is far beyond the compass 
of our reason, and God has not thought fit to explain 
it in revelation. We must, therefore, leave it as we 



108 PHRENOLOGY. 

find it. As it is not within the province of reason, and 
as it has not been revealed, we must not attempt to 
fathom it. We are no more able to comprehend it 
than we are able to fathom time, eternity, space, life, 
death, and Deity. Although we cannot comprehend 
them, we are bound to believe the two doctrines re- 
ferred to, because they are plainly set forth in various 
places in the infallible words of inspiration. How any 
man has been able to deny their existence in Scrix^ture 
is a marvel to me. His opposition to the doctrines 
cannot possibly be based on the want of evidence ; but 
must be owing to an utter want of disposition to sub- 
mit to the evidence which is so plainly before him. 
The denial of these doctrines is just a species of in- 
fidelity. 

Although this is not the place for discussing these 
questions, I shall, before quitting the subject, refer to 
one point, which I imagine the most reckless amongst 
the professors of Christianity will not venture to dis- 
pute — namely. That man may sin, and be held account- 
able for his sin, in carrying out the very decrees of the 
Almighty. This is a wonderful idea ; but it is an in- 
controvertible truth. Christ came into the world for 
the very purpose of dying on Calvary's cross for the 
sins of His people. Every single thing that happened 
was absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of that 
marvellous fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. All was pro- 
phesied and decreed beforehand. It must happen, and 



HEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 109 

happen in an exact and particular manner. It was 
unavoidable, because it belonged to the eternal pur- 
poses of the Almighty. But yet, notwithstanding all 
this, the parties who' carried God's decrees into opera- 
tion were held accountable as sinners for their actions. 
The action was inevitable, and yet it was sinful. Here 
we have the two doctrines palpably and plainly taught. 
No man dare venture to deny the fact. We cannot 
explain it, but we must admit it. The facts are patent 
throughout revelation, and the words of Scripture are 
unmistakable : " Him, being delivered by the deter- 
minate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have 
taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain* 
. . . But those things, which God before had showed 
by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should 
suffer. He hath so fulfilled. Eepent ye therefore, and 
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. . . . 
All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the 
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, 
concerning me. . . . Truly the Son of man goeth as it 
was determined ; but woe unto that man by whom He 
is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had 
not been born." No language could be more decisive 
than this. Christ was delivered by the determinate 
counsel and foreknowledge of God ; His sufferings were 
foretold by all the prophets ; and yet the parties who 
fulfilled the predictions, and carried out the determinate 
counsels, were held responsible as having done it by 



110 PHRENOLOGY. 

wicked hands. Here the two doctrines are as plainly 
set forth as words can depict them. The crucifixion 
was inevitable from all eternity, and yet the perform- 
ance of it was sin. Christ must needs be betrayed, 
and yet it would have been well for Judas he had never 
been born. We may look upon this as a marvellous 
and inexplicable doctrine ; but that is no reason why 
we should vainly and foolishly attempt to deny its 
existence in Scripture. Deny it as we may, it is there. 
To some it is very unpalatable ; but that does not 
make it untrue. Neither is there any valid reason why 
we should reject revelation because it contains such 
doctrines. On the contrary, if the Book were of man, 
it would have been differently written, and the plan 
on which it is written, being objectionable to the 
natural mind of man, is a strong argument for its 
Divine origin. We can neither fathom nor reconcile 
man's necessity and responsibility. They are not 
within the compass of reason. It is perfectly possible 
that the one may be true in one sense, and the other 
in a different sense, and therefore there is no necessary 
contradiction between them. When they do not ne- 
cessarily contradict each other, they have a just right 
to be believed on proper evidence. These doctrines 
just occupy the same position in regard to the exercise 
of reason that the Trinity does. They are far above 
its reach, and therefore we cannot comprehend or ex- 
plain them. Under these circumstances, and seeing 



EEPLY TO OBJECTIONS. Ill 

they are plainly set forth in Scripture, we are bound 
to believe them. This course is consistent alike with 
revelation, reason, and good common sense. Since 
they are not contrary to reason, it would be anything 
but rational to reject them as untrue, whilst we firmly 
believe in many other things, such as life, death, eter- 
nity, time, space, and Deity, which are quite as incom- 
prehensible as necessity and responsibility. If we were 
to believe nothing but what we are able to comprehend, 
we would believe very little. Every man believes he 
has life ; but I would like to see the man who can tell 
me what life is. We may know its consequences, and 
the indications of its existence, but we cannot in the 
least degree fathom its nature. It is a great mistake 
to imagine, as some have done, that the doctrines I 
have been referring to are in the same position as the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation. They are above rea- 
son, it is within the bounds of reason ; they do not 
necessarily contain a contradiction, it does. Take the 
Trinity as an illustration. It would certainly be a con- 
tradiction to say that one God is three Gods, and that 
three Gods are one God ; or to say that one person is 
three persons, and that three persons are one person. 
This would come within the compass of reason, and 
would involve a contradiction, and could not be true. 
But this is not the Trinitarian doctrine. It involves 
no contradiction, because it holds that the three per- 
sons are one God, and the one God is three persons. 



112 PHRENOLOGY. 

They are not three in the same sense in which they 
are one, nor one in the same sense in which they are 
three. They are three in one sense, and one in another 
sense. In their personality they are three, in their 
Godhead they are one. It is surely as plain as the 
light of heaven that there is no contradiction here. 
The thing is incomprehensible because it is beyond our 
reason ; but there is no contradiction in the matter. 
On the other hand, however, the doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation comes perfectly within the province of, and 
directly contradicts, our reason, and therefore cannot 
possibly be true. Its essential point is, that a piece of 
bread is changed into the real body, flesh, blood, and 
bones, of Christ, whilst at the same time, according to 
the testimony of our senses of sight, touch, taste^ 
hearing, and smelling, there is not the least change on it 
— it has all the qualities and properties of bread, and 
gives us no evidence whatever of being flesh, blood, and 
bones. Now, this is a point within the power of our 
reason, is perfectly cognizable to our senses, and as it is 
plainly contradictory to our senses and reason, it cannot 
possibly be true. No evidence could prove its truth. A 
contradiction cannot be true. It is different, however, 
with all the other doctrines I have been writing about. 
They are all above our reason, and may be true, and 
hence ought to be received as true on sufficient evi- 
dence. It is very foolish, and quite unphilosophical, to 
refuse to believe a thing merely because it is beyond 



REPLY TO OBJECTIONS. 113 

our reason. To do so is to imagine that we are equal 

with God, who knows all things. We can understand 

many things ; but there are thousands of things which 

we cannot comprehend. Let us not on this account 

foolishly imagine that they must be untrue. They 

may or may not be true for aught our reason can tell. 

If our reason were more perfect and more extended, we 

might understand many things which are now quite 

dark. Things which are incomprehensible to an idiot 

might be quite easily understood by a man like Sir 

Isaac Newton. On the same principle, things which 

were incomprehensible to Newton might be as plain as 

the light of day to another man, provided only the 

Creator had endowed him with one or two additional 

reasoning faculties to those which Newton possessed. 

This is the right way to look at it. If one of our present 

reasoning faculties were taken from us, we would be 

unable to comprehend many things which we now 

understand. Would that make these things untrue, 

or be a proper reason for our denying their truth ? 

Certainly not. They would only then be above the 

reason we possessed, and might be true for aught we 

could tell by reason. So in the other case ; the things 

which are above our present reason might be completely 

within our compass if we had another faculty added to 

our present stock. If God had created a man as far 

above Sir Isaac Newton as Newton was above an idiot, 

that man would be amused at the tiny efforts of our 

H 



114 PHRENOLOGY. 

present puny intellects. Hence I conclude that, whilst 
we ought to reject everything which contradicts reason, 
because, being thus within its compass, we know it is 
untrue, we should never reject a properly attested doc- 
trine, which is free from contradiction, on the mere 
grounds of its being beyond the reach of our present 
reasoning faculties. This is the course which appears 
to me to be consistent with revelation as well as with 
genuine philosophy. 



IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 

In entering more particularly on our subject, the first 
question of importance which presents itself for our 
consideration is this, Is the brain in a special sense the 
organ of the mind ? The common observation of man- 
kind is on the phrenological side of the question. We 
frequently hear people say, That fellow is a numb-skull, 
a thick-head ; or, he has a badly-furnished upper story. 
They will remark of some other person, He has a splendid 
forehead, a long head, a strong head ; or, he is furnished 
with plenty of brains. These and all similar expres- 
sions prove incontestably that the correspondence be- 
tween the size and shape of the head and the mental 
manifestations of the individual has not escaped pop- 
ular observation ; but the public have never attempted 
to elucidate the precise points on which their opinions 



IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND ? 115 

are based. In fact they are, to a certain extent, prac- 
tical Phrenologists, although they will not admit it in so 
many words. When promising a refutation of Luther's 
sermon, Tetzel said, " Then it will be manifest to the 
eyes of all, who has a dull brain.'" — {UAubigne.) 
Speaking of Johnson, Boswell observes, " He united a 
most logical head with a most fertile imagination." — 
{Tour to the Hebrides?) And Churchill, referring to the 
taxation of literary property, has the following lines — 

*' No statesman yet has thought it worth his pains 
To tax our labours or excise our hrains?'' 

The experiments and observations of Camper, 
Lavater, Daubenton, Cuvier, Blumenbach, and Soem- 
mering, on the facial and occipital angles, and on 
the proportional development of the brain, face, and 
body, although frequently erroneous, and devoid of 
practical value, are founded on the idea that there is 
some sort of connexion between the development of 
the brain and the mental manifestations of the indi- 
vidual. The same may also be said of the fanciful ideas 
of Plato, Bichat, and Eicherand, who considered the 
length of the neck had something to do with the 
state of the intellect. " According to them," says 
Spurzheim, " the intellectual' faculties are weaker the 
longer the neck is, because the brain is more removed 
from the heart, and consequently is less excited by the 
blood." This theory has no evidence whatever to 



116 PHKENOLOGY. 

support it, but still it shows that the brain was looked 
on, in some sense^ by its authors as an instrument 
for the mind. 

The connection of soul and body has occupied the 
attention of philosophers in all ages of the world. Stahl 
gave the whole body as a habitation to the soul ; Yan 
Helmont placed it in the stomach, and Drelincourt in 
the cerebellum. The great body of philosophers, how- 
ever, have connected it more or less with the brain. 
This has been the case with Pythagoras, Plato, Galen, 
Haller, Hartley, and nearly all the moderns. " Aris- 
totle taught that the first or anterior ventricle of the 
brain, which he supposed to look towards the front, 
was the ventricle of common sense, because from it, 
according to him, the nerves of the five senses branched 
off, and into it, by aid of these nerves, all smells, 
colours, tastes, sounds, and tactile afiections, were 
brought together. The second ventricle, connected by a 
minute opening with the first, he fixed upon as the seat 
of imagination, judgment, and reflection, because the im- 
pressions from the five senses are transmitted from the 
first ventricle into it, as a second stage in their progress 
through the brain. The third ventricle was sacred to 
memory, because it was commodiously situated as a 
storehouse into which the conceptions of the mind, 
digested in the second ventricle, might be transmitted 
for retention and accumulation. . . . Bernard Gordon, 
a Scotch physician, Professor of Medicine at Mont- 



IS THE BRAIX THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? Il7 

pelier, in a tract written in 1296, gives nearly the same 
account as Aristotle, of the functions of the brain. 
There are, he says, three cells, or ventricles, in the 
brain. In the anterior part of the first ventricle lies 
Common Sense. In the posterior part of the first 
ventricle lies Phantasia. In the anterior department 
of the second ventricle lies Imaginativa. In the poste- 
rior portion of the middle ventricle lies Estimativa. 
In the third, or posterior, ventricle Memory holds its 
seat. Above them all, however, is another, a higher, a 
divine, and an incorruptible faculty, or virtue, called 
Intellect, which has no organ, although it makes use of 
the organs just mentioned as media for acting on the 
external world. . . . Andrew Vesalius, in the sixteenth 
century, informs us that the air which we breathe, 
penetrating through the cribriform process of the eth- 
moidal bone, and through the Eustachian tubes, is by 
rarefaction rendered fit for the brain, and then insinu- 
ates itself into the first and second ventricles, where it 
is formed into animal spirits. These then pass into 
the third ventricle of the brain, and thence into the 
ventricle of the cerebellum. From this no small 
portion of them is transmitted into the medulla oblong- 
gata, and into the nerves propagated from it. . . . In 
a work upon the memory by Lodovico Dolce, a Venetian, 
published in 1562, precisely the same account of the 
divisions of the brain, and of the mental faculties, as 
that by Bernard Gordon, is given, accom23anied by a 



118 PHKENOLOaY. 

plate of the head with these divisions marked on it." 
— {Phren. Jour, 1824.) 

Such were the opinions at one time held regarding 
the brain. They show that even in the middle ages 
the brain was supposed to be connected with the mind. 
Beyond this, however, they are of little value, as they 
are not founded on observation, but are laid upon a 
fanciful idea of the existence of animal spirits, and of 
the uses of the cavities, or ventricles, which are found 
in the brain. Indeed the notions inculcated by these 
parties are so entirely visionary and useless, that I 
would not spend my time transcribing them, were it 
not that some anti-phrenologists, on finding themselves 
beaten, have endeavoured to rob Gall of the merit of 
his grand discoveries, by asserting that they were 
made long before his time by Aristotle, Gordon, and 
Lodovico Dolce. The difference between Gall's svstem 
and the visionary ideas of Aristotle, Gordon, Lodovico 
Dolce, and Vesalius, is so great, however, and the 
method of proceeding is so entirely and fundamentally 
opposed, that I cannot possibly go the length of 
believing that the anti-phrenologists referred to are 
honest in stating that they imagine the two systems 
to be alike. They must know that the system which, 
as the result of observation, divides the substance of 
the brain into distinct organs, having each a special 
manifestation, is altogether different from those which, 
from pure imagination, decoct animal spirits to hunt 



IS THE BRAIX THE OEGAN OF THE MIND 1 119 

each other through the cavities of the brain. No 
honest man could pretend that Gall was anticipated in 
his discovery of Phrenology. There was not even a 
foundation laid for his views by the works of his pre- 
decessors, in the way that was done for Harvey's dis- 
covery of the circulation of the blood. Erasistratus im- 
agined that the arteries contained air, but Galen proved 
that they contained blood ; Yesalius showed that the 
division between the two sides of the heart was com- 
plete ; Servetus, Colombo, and Cesalpinus, ascertained 
that the blood passed from the right side of the heart 
through the lungs and returned again by the left side ; 
Fabricius d'Aquapendente observed valves in the 
veins ; and then Harvey completed the whole by 
making the grand discovery of the circulation of the 
blood throughout the entire body. No man in this 
generation would follow the example of the ancients in 
attempting to rob Harvey of the glory which was his 
due as the discoverer of the general circulation, merely 
because there was some foundation laid for it in the 
works of his predecessors. Why, then, will they 
attempt to deprive Gall of his merits, seeing that none 
of his predecessors gave the slightest inkling of a 
foundation for his science ? Harvey^s merits were very 
great, but Gall's are still greater. Harvey must have 
derived considerable advantage'from the observations 
of his predecessors ; Gall could have derived none 
from those who went before him, as they were not in 



120 PHRENOLOGY. 

the same track, and if he had depended upon them they 
must have led him entirely astray. So that, take it 
as you will. Gall is without a rival in the discovery of 
Phrenology. The merit is all his own. 

Great faith has been placed in Lavater's system of 
Physiognomy. I fear, however, if the Phrenological 
element be taken out of it, there will be little left, and 
that little will be perfectly valueless. If any informa- 
tion could be gathered from the appearance and action 
of the muscles of the face, it would only lead us a step 
higher up to ascertain the cause in the organs of the 
brain, which convey mental impressions through their 
nerves directly to the muscles of the face. So that 
whatever information the condition of these muscles 
gives us, it must go to the side of Phrenology, which 
maintains the compound nature of the brain in which 
the nerves supplying these muscles have their origin. 
If the constant action of the mind produces a certain 
fixed appearance in the muscles of the face, it can do 
so only through the organs of the brain with which 
the nerves supplying the muscles of the face are con- 
nected ; and if this points out different traits of char- 
acter, it must be because the nerves communicate with 
organs performing separate and distinct duties ; and 
hence, if it be true, it is only a corroboration of the 
truth of Gall's discovery that the brain is composed of 
a variety of organs, each performing a distinct func- 
tion. Besides, if Physiognomy is to be separated from 



IS THE BEAIX THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 121 

Phrenology, it has no right whatever to use the fore- 
head, or any portion of the head containing brain. 
The brain belongs to the domain of Phrenology, and 
the mere physiognomist has no right to appropriate it. 
The advantage of the one system over the other is well 
illustrated by placing a large sheet of paper over the 
face, from the eyes down, to cover the physiognomical 
part and exhibit the Phrenological ; and then to re- 
verse it by exposing the face and covering the fore- 
head. This will demonstrate how far Gall is superior 
to Lavater. 

The author of the Memorials of Early Genius says, 
regarding Giotto, " that a high and very full forehead 
amply confirms the idea we form from his works of his 
vigorous intellect and lively genius ; " and Allan Cun- 
ningham, in his Lives of British Painters^ remarks, in 
reference to Vandyke, he was excelled by none " in the 
rare and important gift of endowing his heads with 
power to think and actP Surely this savours strongly 
of Phrenology. Again, in Davenport's Life of William 
Gifford, the following occurs, " I believe he would have 
puzzled the Phrenologists strangely ; but that is an 
ordinary occurrence ; and I, not being a disciple of 
these philosophers, shall not concern myself in their 
distress." Here we have a writer endeavouring to throw 
ridicule on Phrenology, whereas in the very same 
paragraph he describes this most extraordinary man 
as having a most extraordinary head. *'His head," 



122 PHEENOLOGY. 

says he, " was of a very singular shape^ being by no 
means high if measured from the chin to the crown, 
but of a greater horizontal length from the forehead 
to the back of the head than any I remember to have 
seen. His forehead projected at a right angle from his 
face, in a very uncommon manner." Is it not astonish- 
ing, almost beyond belief, that Mr Davenport never 
thought of connecting the remarkable shape of this 
man's head with the equally remarkable state of his 
character as a strong proof of the truth of Phrenology, 
in place of adducing it against it ? Will the time ever 
come when men will be guided by common sense, — 
or, perhaps, I should rather say, by uncommon sense ? 
When we have an instance of an extraordinary head 
in connexion with an extraordinary character, it surely 
might strike any person, the least degree above sim- 
plicity, that they bore some relation to each other, 
unless we are prepared to deny that the brain is in 
any sense the organ of the mind. If Mr Davenport 
had found an extraordinary character in combination 
with an ordinary head, he would have had a much 
better chance of puzzling the Phrenologists than with 
the example he has been so foolish as to adduce. 

Mr Moffat, the celebrated African missionary, was 
astonished at the wonderful memory possessed by a 
young man, who could repeat every word of the ser- 
mon he had just heard ; and when the fact was 
referred to, the young man rephed, touching his fore- 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 123 

head with his finger, " When I hear anything great, it 
remains there.'' — (Moffat's Mission to Africa.) Would 
not the experience of mj readers dictate a similar 
answer 1 Are they not all aware that they think 
through their brains, and not through their fingers ? 
And what is this but Phrenology ? The reply of the 
poor African proved that he felt he thought through 
his brain. In this instance he had the decided advan- 
tage of the far-famed editor of the Edinburgh Review^ 
who, in his attack on Phrenology at the 247th page of 
the 49th number, says, " We solemnly declare that we, 
for our part, have never yet known what it is to feel 
that we think by means of our brainsr After reading 
his article, I am not at all disposed to doubt the truth 
of his statement, but I do pity his most lamentable 
condition. The man who reflects so little as never to 
have been made aware that he thinks through his 
brain, is truly in a lamentable plight, and deserves the 
commiseration of the human race. Haslam mentions 
the case even of a madman who knew he thought 
through his brain. This man " always stopped his ears 
closely with wool, and, in addition to a flannel night-cap, 
usually slept with his head in a tin saucepan. Being 
asked the reason why he so fortified his head, he re- 
plied, ' to prevent the intrusion of the sprites.' He 
was apprehensive that his head would become the 
receptacle of these imaginary formations ; that they 
would penetrate into the interior of his hrain^ become 



124 



PHRENOLOGY. 



acquainted with his hidden thoughts and intellectual 
observations, and then depart and communicate to 
others the ideas they had thus derived. ^ In this 
manner/ said he, ' I have been defrauded of discoveries 
that would have entitled me to opulence and distinc- 
tion, and have lived to see others reap honours and 
emoluments for speculations which were the .offspring 
of mj own brain, " — (Beck's Medical Jurisprudence, p. 
394.) 

Painters and sculptors generally observe nature 
pretty closely ; but no person ever yet found them 
giving the same sort of head to a ISTero and a Howard, 
to a Socrates and an idiot. They never make mistakes 
of this description. They know right well that differ- 
ent characters have different heads ; and a great part 
of their success depends on the power they have of 
making the heads speak the proper character. The 
man who would give a narrow base and a small poste- 
rior development of brain, with a high and noble fore- 
head, to a Bacchus, a Vitellius, or a Pope Alexander 
the sixth, would have a poor chance of election at the 
Eoyal Academy. ' 

Of all parts of the body, the brain has confessedly 
been the greatest puzzle to Physiologists. For the 
last century, they have been cutting and carving it in 
every direction, both before and after death, but still, 
according even to their own acknowledgments, they are 
almost completely in the dark. The truth is, the only 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 12o 

system which can throw hght on the comphcated 
functions of this organ, is that one propounded by Drs 
Gall and Spurzheim, and the Physiologists are rapidly 
flowing into the ranks of the Phrenologists. " The 
science of which Gall is the founder/^ says that great 
pathologist, Andral, " must henceforward be included 
among the grave and serious studies of Physiology." 
" Fierce opponents," observes Dr Rumball, " are sinking 
into unwilling admirers of Phrenology. Those who 
used to find it easier to laugh than to learn — to deny 
than to appreciate — now discover that their objec- 
tions are so met and refuted, that their only safe 
course is to be silent, or at once admit, what in no 
single instance they have been able to disprove ; a line 
of conduct adopted by many of the first Physiologists 
of the day.'' 

I have said that the Physiologists know exceedingly 
little of the functions of the brain. Here are some of 
my proofs : — Dr Prichard, who was an opponent of 
Phrenology, says at the 41st page of his work on 
Nervous Diseases, '' I am sanguine enough to hope 
that the time will arrive when we may be enabled to 
ascertain the nature of the cerebral functions, and, 
perhaps, to understand thoroughly the whole of the 
process which is carried on in this part of our bodily 
fabric. At present, however, we must confess that we 
are not in possession of 07ie fact that belongs to it." 
And Dr Eoget, who wrote specially against Phrenology, 



126 PHRENOLOGY. 

is obliged to admit, as a Physiologist, that " one organ 
alone has baffled all investigation, and still presents a 
wide blank in this rich and cultivated field of knowledge. 
The brain, that large mass of pulpy substance, which 
fills the cavity of the cranium, is, even at the present 
day, as incomprehensible in its functions^ as it is subtle 
and complex in its anatomy."— (TVea^z^e on Physiology 
and Phrenology^ vol. i. p. 6.) " Physiologists in 
general," says Professor Solly of London, " have too 
constantly amused themselves with creating theories 
on one or two isolated facts, or in vainly searching 
after the ultimate cause of vital phenomena ; it is but 
of late that they have begun to content themselves 
with observing their uniform relations, and with 
scrutinising their efiects, and that they have ceased to 
be the laughing stocks of true philosophy. If, indeed, 
we required proof of the present imperfect state of 
Physiology, and the mean rank which it holds in com- 
parison with the other branches of natural philosophy 
we have only to refer to contemporary writers, where 
we still find such passages as ' the pride of Philosophy 
is humbled by the spectacle of the Physiologist bend- 
ing in fruitless ardour over the dissection of the human 
brain.' Surely we ought to see how absolutely neces- 
sary it has become to cast aside crude and ill-digested 
hypotheses, and to study Physiology under the guidance 
of the general laws of nature, deduced from an unpre- 
judiced observation of fact and circumstance." — (Solly 



IS THE BRATJS" THE OKGAN OF THE MINdI 127 

on The Brain, p. 265.) I hope some of our Physiolo- 
gists, who look down with disdain on Phrenology, will 
derive a wholesome lesson from these admirable re- 
marks of Mr Solly. Pinel despaired of ever being able 
to distinguish the different species of alienation, be- 
cause there was too little knowledge of the healthy- 
functions of the parts upon which the derangement 
depended ; and Haslam says, " Until we are better ac- 
quainted with the functions of the brain, and each of 
its parts, we shall be incapable of judging correctly of 
the derangements incident to these functions." 

Steno had good reason for saying in his day, " that 
the books of the anatomy of the brain are not more 
numerous than the quicksands of doubt and contro- 
versy occasioned by them ; '' and the same would still 
hold good if Gall and Spurzheim had not appeared. 
Hippocrates .and Astruc thought the brain was a 
sponge ; Aristotle took it for a bloodless mass which 
tempered the heat of the heart ; Praxagoras, Plistonicus, 
Philotinus, and others, considered it a mere excrescence 
of the spinal marrow ; Misticelli called it an inorganic 
mass ; Malpighi thought it was a collection of confused 
intestines ; Sabatier and Boyer made it a secretory 
organ ; Galen and many others imagined that it se- 
creted vital spirits, and distributed them through the 
arteries to the body ; whilst Bichat considered it an 
envelope to protect the parts beneath it. — {Gall^ vol. 
ii.) Even Haller, Cuvier, and Good, embraced the 



128 PHRENOLOGY. 

theory of vital spirits, {Bostocic ;) and Wilson Philip 
seemed to look on the brain as a sort of galvanic 
battery. It was quite impossible that any benefit 
could arise from dissections of the brain before the 
days of Gall and Spurzheim, in consequence of the way 
in which they were performed by slicing from above 
downwards. Gall and Spurzheim were the originators 
of the method of dissecting it from below upwards, 
after the arrangement of its structure. This is the 
only rational plan ; and it is very remarkable that 
anatomists have been so slow in adopting it. Its ad- 
vantages are so evident that a person would have 
supposed it would have been universally and exclu- 
sively adopted the moment it was pointed out, were it 
not that the history of the world shows that truth 
travels slowly. " According to the plan generally 
pursued in treating the anatomy of the brain in sys- 
tematic works of the present day," says Mr Solly of 
London, in 1836, " all the information conveyed 
amounts to little more than a vain catalogue of names 
applied to parts, without reference to their structure, 
their functions, or even their analogies in the nervous 
system of the lower animals. . . . It is unfortunate 
that candidates for the diploma are still very generally 
required to describe the appearances presented by the 
brain dissected, or rather destroyed^ by the old method 
of slicing — a method most unphilosophical in its con- 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 129 

ception, and totally inadequate to impart any real in- 
formation in regard to the structure of the organ.'^ 

I am sorry to find Mr Solly has followed the course 
of many other anatomists and physiologists in adopt- 
ing as true the assertion first made by Dr Gordon, that 
to Eeil belongs the merit of having discovered the new 
method of dissecting the brain. This is an unfair and 
ungenerous course to adopt. The merit should at once 
be awarded to Gall and Spurzheim, to wthom, and to 
whom alone, it is rightly due. No men could be worse 
treated than these two philosophers. Their discoveries 
have often been denied altogether, or else plagiarised, 
or claimed for other people. '^ Professor Eeil, of Halle," 
says Solly, ^'preceded Gail and Spurzheim in adopt- 
ing a scientific method of dissecting the brain, . . . 
Eeil first published the result of his researches in 1807, 
in the Archives of Physiology, conducted by Auten- 
rieth." Now, how will this statement square with the 
facts and the dates ? Let it be observed, Eeil's first 
publication was in 1807. Gall and Spurzheim com- 
menced their united anatomical investigations in 1804, 
(Preface to Spurzheim's Anatomy of the Brain) ; they 
were banished from Vienna in 1805 : they arrived in 
Halle on the 8th of July 1805, and dissected a brain in 
the presence of P rofessor Reil ; in regard to which Eeil 
said to Professor Bischoff, ^' I have seen more, in the 
anatomical demonstrations of the brain, made by Gall, 

than I thought that a man could discover in bis whole 

I 



130 PHRENOLOGY. 

life."— (Spurzheim's Physiognomy, pp. 23 and 30 : and 
Phrenological Journal^ vol. 6, p. 306.) What can any 
man say after comparing these dates, and reading this 
statement from Eeil himself? In place of allowing 
their miserable prejudices against Phrenology, to force 
them to detract from the anatomical merits of Gall 
and Spurzheim, the Anatomists and Physiologists 
should, one and all, throw blame on Reil for 
adopting th^ discoveries of these other philosophers 
without a sufficiently precise acknowledgment. Gall 
and Spurzheim claimed these discoveries from the 
very first ; Eeil never did, and this alone should settle 
the question of ownership. But still Reil should have 
acknowledged the source of his information in more 
specific language than is contained in the above 
passage. 

" I affirm," says Dr Bailly, " without fear of contra- 
diction, that no anatomist before Gall had ever the 
slightest idea of the true structure of the convolu- 
tions of the brain," {Journal of the Paris Phrenological 
Society for 1835.) And Professor Blumenbach, writing 
from Gottingen to Dr Albers of Bremen, on the 10th 
of September 1805, two years before Reil's publication, 
says, " I need not inform you that I congratulate my- 
self uncommonly on having heard Dr Gall. . . . His 
lectures were equally interesting and entertaining to 
me. . . . The views which he maintains on the organ- 
isation of the brain, the derivation of some of the sup- 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 131 

posed cerebral nerves from the spinal-cord, &c., are to 
me extremely important." Sir Astley Cooper declared 
in his lectm^es at the Eoyal College of Surgeons, Lon- 
don, that he knew nothing of the brain before he read 
Dr Spurzheim's book. — (Rjam's London MedicalJouriia I, 
for 11th August 1832.) The great anatomist, Loder, in 
writing to Hufeland, remarks, " Now that Gall has been 
at Halle, and I have had an opportunity, not only of 
listening to his lectures, but also of dissecting with 
him, either alone or in the company of Eeil and several 
others, nine human brains and fourtecD of brutes, 1 
think I am able and entitled to pronounce my opinion of 
his doctrines. . . . The discoveries in the brain made 
by Gall are of the highest importance. I speak of the 
corpora striata, the passage of the pyramidal bodies 
into the crura, the bundles of the spinal marrow, tlitr 
decussation of the fibres in the pyramidal and olivary 
bodies, &c., (fee. These discoveries alone would be 
sufiicient to render Gall's name immortal. They are 
the most important that have been made in anatomy 
since that of the absorbent system. The unfolding 
the convolutions is a capital thing. What have w^e 
not a right to expect from farther progress in a route 
thus opened ? 1 am ashamed of myself for having, 
like others, for thirty years cut up some hundreds of 
brains, as vre sUce up cheese, and not perceived the 
forest by reason of the great number of trees. The 
best thing we can do is, to hst en to the truth and learn 



133 PHRENOLOGY. 

what we are ignorant of." — (Quoted by Gall, in his 6th 
vol, from Demangeon and Bischoff.) ^^ I am fully con= 
vinced," says Professor Hufeland, " that the doctrine of 
Gall ought to be considered as one of the most remark- 
able phenomena of the eighteenth century, and one of 
the most important and boldest advances that have 
been made in the study of nature. One must see and 
hear in order to learn that the man is entirely free 
from prejudice^ charlatanism, deceit, and metaphysical 
reveries." 

Now that my readers have had an opportunity of 
perusing the foregoing testimonies, I ask them what 
they think of the following : — " It appears to ns, that 
in the anatomical department, Gall and Spurzheim 
have displayed more quackery than in any other ; and 
their bad faith is here the more unpardonable that it 
was so much the more likely to escape detection. . . , 
Such is the grand system of the diverging and con- 
verging fibres of the brain, of which Drs Gall and 
Spurzheim are the sole inventors and proprietors. . . . 
It is our painful duty to remark that the system is a 
complete fiction from beginning to end. . . . We must 
ascribe their inaccuracies solely to intention. . . . The 
writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim have not added 
one fact to the stock of our knowledge respecting either 
the structure or the functions of man." — (Edinburgh 
Rpvieiv, No. 49, pages 254, 261, 268.) Is there a man 
throughout the length and breadth of Scotland who, 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 133 

after reading the testimonies I have produced, and, 
more particularlj;, after making himself acquainted 
with the opinions on the structure of the brain which 
are now ahnost universally taught by anatomists, could 
read the above extract without feeling that the Edin- 
hurgh Revieiu is an everlasting disgrace to his country ] 
Mr James Paget has claimed {Lancet^ March 10th, 
1866) the honour of discovering the trichina spiralis, 
on the grounds that his discovery was known to the 
students in the dissecting room for some days before 
Professor Owen's investigations on the subject, and 
also that his communication to the Abernethian 
Society preceded Professor Owen's paper at the Zoolo- 
gical Society by eighteen days. On these grounds, 
Mr Paget's claim to the discovery has been admitted, 
and very properly admitted. No man would venture 
to deprive him of his just reward. This is as it should 
be. But I would like to know the reason why the 
same principle of fair play should not be extended to 
Gall and Spurzheim. Is the fact of their being 
Phrenologists a sufficient reason for depriving them 
of the merit of their great anatomical discoveries 
regarding the dissection of the brain ? Are they 
legitimate objects of plunder, because they are Phren- 
ologists ? Mr Paget very properly gets credit because 
he anticipated Professor Owen by a few days. In the 
name of justice, then, I ask, why should Reil get credit 
for discovering, in 1807, a method of dissecting the 



134 PHRENOLOGY. 

brain, which had been practised by Gall and Spurzheim 
previous to 1804, and which had actually been demon- 
strated by themselves to Eeil, at Halle in 1805, as 
testified both by Eeil and Loder 1 Is the pupil to get 
the honour of a discovery which was taught him by 
his master ? The treatment which Gall and Spurzheim 
have received at the hands of various parties is very dis- 
creditable. Dr Gordon and his followers would allow 
them no credit at all ; but there are others, such as 
Herbert Mayo, who would be disposed, [Physiology by 
Mayo, 3d Edit. p. 241,) to associate them to a certain 
extent with Reil. They cannot have the face to allot 
all the honour to Reil, and therefore they associate him 
vvith Gall and Spurzheim. In this particular, they 
forcibly remind me of the story which I heard on the 
platform from the teetotal orator, John Gough, about 
Betty and the bear. Betty and her husband were 
alone in their cottage, which consisted of a single 
ajjartment. A bear walked into the place. The cour- 
ageous husband put a ladder to the beam which stretched 
across the cottage, and climbed up as fast as he could. 
When he got on the beam, he was afraid the bear 
would follow, and he instantly pulled up the ladder, 
leaving poor Betty on the floor to the mercy of the 
bear. Betty got hold of a bludgeon and gave the bear 
a right good blow on the head. " That 's right, Betty ; '^ 
said the husband, " well done, Betty ! give him another 
blow, Betty ! hit him again, Betty ! '^ When Betty had 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 135 

finished off the bear, her valiant husband descended, 
remarking, at the same time, "Didn't we do that 
well, Betty ? " Here the husband laid claim to a 
share in the merit of killing the bear ; and he had 
just as much right to it as Reil has to the discovery 
of Gall's method of dissecting the brain. It seems 
to have been a principle in human nature, at all 
times, to deny a discovery, detract from its merits, if 
made, or else, when it has become established and 
fashionable, to join in, and take share in the merit 
which originally belonged to it. These principles are 
well illustrated in the chapter on Chloroform in the 
second volume of Sir J. Y. Simpson's most admirable 
Obstetric Works. " Whenever an invention or a pro- 
ject has made its way so well by itself as to establish a 
certain reputation, most people are 'sure to find out 
that they always patronised it from the beginning; 
and a happy gift of forgetfulness enables many to 
believe their own assertion." — ( Works of Lady M. W. 
Montagu^ by Lord Wharncliffe.) I have not the 
slightest doubt that, if some of those individuals who 
have given such bitter opposition to Gall, were to live 
till Phrenology would become universally popular, they 
would " whirl " at once with the tide of success, in the 
same way as the newspapers did in the following 
'' Political Gamut. — In 1815, the French newspapers 
announced the departure of Bonaparte from Elba, his 
progress through France, and his entry into Paris, iii 



136 PHRENOLOGY. 

the following manner : — ' March 9. The Anthropopha- 
gus has quitted his den. March 10. The Corsican 
Ogre has landed at Cape Juan. March 11. The Tiger 
has arrived at Gap. March 12. The Monster slept at 
Grenoble. March 13. The Tyrant has passed through 
Lyons. March 14, The Usurper is directing his steps 
towards Dijon, but the brave and loyal Burgundians 
have risen en masse, and surrounded him on all sides. 
March 18. Bonaparte is only sixty leagues from the 
capital ; he has been fortunate enough to escape the 
hands of his pursuers. March 18. Bonaparte is advanc- 
ing with rapid steps, but he will never enter Paris. 
March 20. Napoleon will, to-morrow, be under our 
ramparts. March 21. The Emperor is at Fontainebleau. 
March 22. His Imperial and Eoyal Majesty yesterday 
evening arrived at the Tuileries, amidst the joyful 
acclamations of his devoted and faithful subjects.' " 
— (Notes and Queries.) 

Tiedemann, the very distinguished Heidelberg Pro- 
fessor, confesses, " that persons with large foreheads 
are endowed with superior intellects, and that indi- 
viduals with small heads have inferior intellects. . . . 
This," he continues, " would appear to show that there 
is some truth in the doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim." 
No doubt of it. The person who goes thus far, if he 
had one particle of consistency, must admit there is a 
vast deal of truth in the doctrines of Gall and Spurz- 
heim. Tiedemann here admits two very important 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 137 

points, — namely, that there is a direct relation be- 
tween the size of the head and the capacity for mental 
manifestation ; and also, that the forehead is, in a 
special sense, connected with intellectual power. From 
this it is evident he has imbibed Phrenological opinions, 
and therefore he goes on to say, " it would be well if 
the heads of individuals intended for an intellectual 
or studious life, were measured before they com- 
menced their studies, as many disappointments would 
be avoided." — {Phren. Journal^ vol. ix.) Is not this 
very like Phrenology ? ' It surely is. But yet, the 
man who made these statements was a most decided 
opponent of the science ! Alas, for consistency ! ! Pro- 
fessor Miiller, of Berlin, who is reckoned a first-class 
physiologist, but who is an unquestionable opponent 
of Phrenology, says, " In no part of Physiology can we 
derive greater aid from Comparative Anatomy than in 
the physiology of the brain. Corresponding with the 
development of the intellectual faculties in the dif- 
ferent classes, we meet with very great differences in 
the form of the brain, which are highly important in 
aiding us to determine the functions of the different 
parts of the organ. . . . The brain undergoes a gradual 
increase of size from fishes up to man, in accordance 
with the development of the intellectual faculties. 
All parts of the encephalon, however, do not keep 
pace equally with the development of the intellectual 
powers. It is in the cerebral hemispheres that the 



138 PHEENOLOGY. 

increase of size in the higher animals chiefly takes 
place/' — (Miiller's Physiology.) Is it not astonishing 
almost beyond belief, that any man could hold prin- 
ciples so thoroughly identical as these are with the 
fundamental doctrines of Phrenology, and after all 
deny the truth of that science ? Such observations, 
however, coming from an anti-phrenologist like Pro- 
fessor Miiller, are extremely important, and may be 
placed in amusing contrast with the ridiculous state- 
ments of the Edinhurgh Review^ when it says, " We 
deny that there is any connexion or proportion what- 
ever to be observed, on a comparison of animals with 
each other, between their intellect or inclinations and 
the number of parts in their brains." — (Edin, Reviev), 
No. 49, p. 245.) 

" It is remarked by physiologists,'' says the Rev. 
John Barlow, " that the development of the hemis- 
pheres of the brain proceeds step by step with the 
development of intelligence through the successive 
classes of the animal kingdom till it arrives at perfec- 
tion in man." And Dr Fletcher, of Edinburgh, in his 
Lectures on Physiology, asks, " Who has not seen 
artificially educated horses, dogs, lions, pigs, elephants, 
bears, monkeys, canary birds, and even hens, but who 
has ever seen, or ever will see, an educated worm or 
oyster ? The educability of animals, then, or in other 
words their intellect, is in proportion to the size and 
composition of their brains." A moment's reflection, it 



IS THE BEAIX THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 139 

appears to me, would be sufficient to convince us that 
this is only what reason and common sense would 
point out as likely to be the case. I would like to 
know what would be the use of our receiving an 
intellect superior to the lower animals, if we had not. 
at the same time, been endowed with a brain, or 
material instrument, equally elevated, through which 
our minds could manifest all their high and noble 
functions. If this were not the case — if the quality, 
quantity, complexity, and proportional development 
of the brain were not in strict accordance with the 
elevation of the mind conferred, the human race 
would be in a sort of idiotic condition. 

The late Professor Graves of Dublin was one of the 
most eminent men the medical profession in Ireland 
could ever boast of. He was not an out and out 
Phrenologist,, but he was something like " half seas 
over." It is evident, however, he had not the fear of 
the Edinburgh Revievj before his eyes when he uttered 
the following : " Accordingly we find that exactly in 
proportion as the encephalic portion of the nervous 
system is developed in the vertebrated animals, we 
can trace the appearance of new faculties, which, few 
and obscure in the lower species, become, as we as- 
cend, more numerous and more distinct until we 
arrive at man, in whom the brain attains a degree of 
pre-eminence sufficient to place him far above all other 
species of mammalia. And has the Creator conferred 



140 PHRENOLOGY. 

on man this gift in vain ? Certainly not ; for His 
wisdom has attached to this superiority of cerebral 
development a corresponding exaltation of intellectual 
faculties. . . . Through the various degrees of instinct 
and intelligence observable in the different classes of 
the animal kingdom we perceive an uninterrupted gra- 
dation, an unbroken chain, until we arrive at man, when 
the nervous system and the intellect receive a simul- 
taneous improvement, so great as to place man far 
above the rest of his fellow-creatures. But man does 
not only differ from other animals in the configuration 
of his brain and the capacity of his mind, but also 
exhibits the singular fact of a great difference, in these 
respects, between individuals of the same species : it 
being an obvious fact, that different men exhibit as 
much disparity in their intellectual powers as if they 
were animals of a different genus. In all such cases 
(where the difference between the intellectual powers 
is extreme), there also we invariably find a striking 
difference between the form and size of their skulls ; the 
most highly-gifted always presenting a greater relative 
proportion of brain. So far then must every reflecting 
man be a Phrenologist — so far must all concede that 
cerebral development and mental power are mutually 
proportioned to each other. But can we advance farther 
than this general proposition, and may we not affirm 
that the anterior portion of the brain is proportioned 
in size to the intellectual faculties ? Experiments on 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 141 

animals, and observations on man, afford verj strong- 
reasons for arriving at such a conclusion, which tends 
to establish the leading principle of the Phrenologist, 
' that different portions of the brain perform different 
intellectual functions.' ... It would appear, certainly, 
that the anterior portion of the brain is devoted to the 
intellectual faculties, but that the strength of the moral 
feelings and animal propensities is regulated by the 
development of the remaining portions of the en- 
cephalic mass." — (Graves' Lectures in R^an'^s London 
Journal, vol. ii. p. 393.) 

" It was long ago observed by Physiologists," says 
the anti-phrenological writer in the Popular Encyclo- 
pcedia^ " that the characters of animals were in a great 
measure determinable by the formation of the fore- 
head ; and that the intelligence of the animal, in most 
cases, rose or fell in proportion to the elevation or 
prostration of his skull." This is very good indeed ! 
What more could any Phrenologist ask from an op- 
ponent ? Although he does not seem to be aware of 
it, he is half converted already. If he be not a real 
Phrenologist, he is certainly touching on the borders, 
and he would require to look sharp that he does not 
fall into the awful chasm which yawns beneath ! He 
is nearly as blind to the dangers of his position as the 
poor labourer was, who, during the time of quarrying 
over the top of the railway tunnel at Downhill, was 
found standing on a stone at the top of the precipice; 



142 , PHRENOLOGY. 

with his back to the sea, whilst with a crowbar he 
was using his energies to cant the very stone on which 
he stood over the rocks into the abyss beneath. When 
Colonel Babington saved the man's life by pointing 
out the nature of his predicament, the poor fellow 
was so shocked at the view of his danger that he 
blessed himself, vowed he would never work at a rail- 
way again, dropped his crowbar, left his coat and hat 
on the ground, and ran home as fast as he was able- 
There may be an excuse for the poor ignorant man, 
who did not see that he was rolling himself over along 
with the stone ; but no apology can be made for the 
blindness or inconsistency of the writer in the En- 
cyclopcedia. 

So long as the various statements I have been quot- 
ing come from Physiologists, under the name of Physi- 
ology, they will be sure to pass current, and will be 
received as quite orthodox ; but the moment they are 
adduced under the startling title of Phrenology they 
become completely heterodox, or are unworthy of 
credit ! The public either speak of the matter as 
ridiculous, or get so terrified for the consequences 
that they are actually afraid to look the facts in the 
face. Such conduct forcibly reminds me of an anec- 
dote I once heard related on the platform, to the 
following effect : — A poor Presbyterian, who was not 
so well instructed as the generality of that respectable 
body are, happened to be placed in the convalescent 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 143 

wards of an hospital. When the clergyman called to 
visit him, he congratulated him on his having become 
a convalescent. " Convalescent ! " said he, " I am no 
convalescent ; nor will I ever be a convalescent, for I 
was born a Presbyterian, and I'll die a Presbyterian." 
So is it with the authors I have referred to, and with 
many others. They seem to have been born Physi- 
ologists, and they are determined to die Physiologists. 
"What an extraordinary charm there is in names. 

The condemnation of Phrenology by Baron Cuvier 
at the bar of the French Institute, has been gravely 
adduced against it. We are even told that his report 
*• went so far as to excuse the Institute for having 
taken the subject into consideration at all." Alas for 
Phrenology ! It is surely dead for ever. The fatal 
blow has been struck, and Gall and Spurzheim must 
be buried in oblivion. The celebrated Cuvier has 
denounced it, and his opinion surely is decisive, and 
cannot be controverted on any subject. Let every 
man's reason now submit, with proper resignation, to 
authority — let us trample on private judgment and 
common sense — and let us return at once to the 
opinions of Aristotle, Galen, Descartes, Berkeley, Stahl, 
and Van Helmont. If great names can prove any- 
thing, it would be impossible to overturn the opinions 
of these men. It must be borne in mind, however, 
that Cuvier does not stand alone in his hostile opinions, 
because, to use the v/ords of the Popular Encyclopoedia, 



144 PHRENOLOGY. 

" this, it may be curious to remark, has been the fate 
of Phrenology with every really distinguished Physiolo- 
gist and Metaphysician/^ 

In regard to the metaphysicians, I will just say, 
with Dr Caldwell of America, " as soon would I bind 
myself to discover the philosopher's stone, or to con- 
coct the elixir of life out of simples, as to find sub- 
stantial meaning in many of the tenets of fashionable 
Metaphysics." An old Scotchwoman, on being asked 
to define Metaphysics, looked up and said, " Meta- 
pheesics ! Do you no ken what metapheesics mean ? 
Metapheesics just mean a thing which the writer 
does na ken himseF, and which nae other body kens." 
If any person be favourably disposed towards Meta- 
physics, let him wade through the subject, and then 
ask himself the question, Does this bear the impress 
of that simplicity which invariably accompanies the 
works of the Almighty, and is it capable of being 
closely studied, and practically applied, on that uni- 
versal scale, which common sense would point out as 
being absolutely requisite in a science professing to 
deal with the nature of man in his e very-day life ? If 
it bears the simple impress which the Almighty stamps 
upon everything which is essential to know in our 
daily life, how does it come, that so very few have 
studied the subject at all, although it comes to them 
with all the advantages which scholastic, clerical, and 
University authority can confer upon it? How does 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? Ii5 

it come, that of the few who have studied it, the ma- 
jority have done so for no other reason than because 
they were compelled to do it, and the moment they 
left the university it became a dead letter? In my 
opinion, when any subject is so dry, uninteresting, 
unintelligible, impracticable, and useless as to be be- 
yond the reach of the vast majority of the human i^ce, 
it has not God for its A^uthor, and consequently is not 
founded in nature. Tested by this rule, metaphysics 
must stand out without one solitary companion in the 
whole range of human knowledge. I know of no other 
subject which is incapable of being brought, by a per- 
son who has a real capacity for teaching, within the 
grasp of the general public, or which could not be 
made interesting to them. Metaphysics, however, are 
so dismally dark, that a person is commonly said to 
be metaphysical, when he goes so far out of his lati- 
tude, on any subject, as to be wholly unintelligible. 
It is truly delightful to pass from the mazes of meta- 
physics to the simple, intelligible, and highly practical 
principles of Phrenology. Instead of humbling itself 
in the presence of Metaphysics, Phrenology shines 
out more gloriously when contrasted with it, as the 
science of mind, than with any other subject whatever. 
Standing in this contrast, its beauty, harmony, extreme 
simplicity, and practical applicability, must ultimately 
commend it to all rational creatures. 

A reference to the list, in a previous section, of the 

K 



146 PHRENOLOGY. 

eminent men who have embraced Phrenological views, 
will show at a glance, to those who have studied Physi- 
ology, that the statement concerning Physiologists, 
which I have quoted from the Popular Encyclopcedia, 
is not strictly correct. But even if it were true, it 
would be a matter of no importance whatever, because 
it would not signify one farthing if all the Physiologists 
in the world were against us, seeing that such a man 
as Magendie has shed rivers of blood, in the experi- 
ments he performed on living animals, for the purpose 
of discovering the use of the different parts of the 
brain, and after all is left, to a very great extent, in a 
completely bewildered condition. If any of my readers 
will take the trouble, as I have done, of perusing the 
accounts of the experiments performed by Magendie, 
Eolando, Bouillaud, Flourens, Serres, Desmoulin, Fo- 
dera, Legallois, and others, they will see that the ex- 
perimenters were often led to different and even 
opposite conclusions. This is just what might be 
expected, because, as Bostock justly observes, " there 
are difficulties in all experiments that are performed 
on living animals, and especially those respecting the 
nervous system, which no dexterity or address on the 
part of the operator can entirely overcome. We have 
Physiologists, between whose claims on attention it 
would be dif&cult to decide, who relate the results of 
their experiments with minuteness, and with every 
appearance of candour and correctness, and yet whose 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 1 47 

conclusions are frequently at variance witli eacla other." 
— (Bostock's Physiology?) 

" That Physiologists," says Claude Bernard, the 
greatest, and at the same time most cruelly reckless, 
experimental Physiologist of the present day, " should 
differ in their views, will certainly not astonish you ; 
have we not seen how different the results of the same ex- 
periment may prove to be, when the conditions in which 
it is performed by various observers do not happen to 
beidenticaU" — {Medical Gazette, January 26th, 1861.) 
No doubt of it, Doctor Bernard ; and we have no right 
to complain of the inaccuracies on these points, if we 
were only let alone ; but we do, must, and will com- 
plain that such contradictory, and comparatively use- 
less experiments, whilst good for little else, should be 
considered, by many parties, as amply sufficient to 
overturn and 'upset the whole system of Phrenology. 
" We fully concur with Sir Charles Bell," observes an 
American reviewer, " that it is doubtful whether the 
contradictory practice of cultivating Physiology by the 
cutting up of living bodies, and thus throwing them 
into a pathological state, has not propagated more 
error than truth. As evidence in favour of this view 
of the subject, it is well known that it is a rare occur- 
rence for any two of these experiments to agree in 
their results." "The errors," writes Mr Solly, "to 
which all deductions made from experiments on living 
animals are liable, are so universally acknowledged in 



148 PHRENOLOGY. 

the present day, that little reliance is placed upon 
them as faithful and unerring sources of knowledge. 
Notwithstanding the hundreds of animals which have 
been sacrificed, on the Continent particularly, the re- 
sults have been generally contradictory, and, with few 
exceptions, are therefore unproductive of facts that 
can be depended on." — (Solly on The Brain.) " Most 
experimenters have operated after systems imagined 
beforehand, and were apt to overlook whatever they 
did not wish to see." — (Keport by Portal, Berthollet, 
Pinel, Dumeril, and Cuvier to the French Institute, 
on Flouren's Memoir, as quoted by Solly.) Could any 
Phrenologist make a more serious charge against them 
than this ? 

" I have made," says Eolando, as quoted by Gall, 
'' innumerable experiments to observe the results of 
injuries to the tubercula quadrigemina and the parts 
adjoining the thalami optici, but have rarely obtained 
constant results, which is not surprising, when we 
reflect on the intimate interlacing of the numerous 
medullary filaments which are met with in these parts ; 
for, as it is extremely difficult to ascertain what fila- 
ments have been divided in these operations, we can- 
not draw clear and precise conclusions where there is 
some difference in the results." Exactly so, M. Rolando. 
You have made a pefectly clear and indubitable case 
against the value of such experiments. The filaments 
of the brain are so minute and closely connected with 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 149 

each other, that it is quite impossible for any man, in 
carving a living animal, to be certain of the precise 
part he is cutting, and therefore the experiments are 
altogether unworthy of confidence as far as the brain 
is concerned. As these barbarous experiments are so 
fruitless in their results, they should never be resorted 
to, except under some very peculiar circumstances. 
What an outcry would be made against the Phrenolo- 
gists, if they were to imitate the example of M. Ber- 
nard, of Paris, who makes a constant practice of 
carving living animals, for the sole purpose of showing 
the experiments to those students who attend his 
Physiological lectures ! "It frequently happens," says 
Dr Carpenter in his lectures on Physiology, " that 
when such violent operations are practised on the 
nervous centres, they occasion an amount of general 
disturbance, which suspends or modifies functions 
that have no immediate connexion with the organ in 
question. . . . Every one who has been engaged in 
Physiological experiments, is aware of the amount of 
difi'erence caused by very minute variations in their 
circumstances ; in no department of inquiry is this 
more the case than in regard to the nervous system ; 
and such difi'erences are yet more likely to occur in 
experiments made upon the nervous centres, than in 
those which concern their trunks." — {Medical Gazette, 
September 1841.) 

I think I have now produced enough, even from the 



150 PHEENOLOGY. 

anti'flirenqlogists^ to prove to the entire satisfaction of 
my readers, that the Physiologists will have to turn 
over a new leaf, and adopt a different method of in- 
vestigation, before they have any chance of driving 
the Phrenologists from the field. Before leaving this 
point, however, I shall treat my readers to the follow- 
ing extract from an opponent, who calls Phrenology 
a " superstition," and Phrenologists " a sect with 
whom it is impossible to be serious without being 
ridiculous.'' Here is the extract : — ^^ The elegant 
ideas of Blumenbach on the nisus formativus," says 
Dr Milligan, " and of Hunter on the diffused matter 
of life, brought reasonable men to see that the forma- 
tion of all such parts (the projections on the surfaces 
of bones) is comprehended in the original desigrl^ of 
the Author of the animal microcosm, and for the evolu- 
tion of which certain springs or forces have been im- 
pressed from the beginning upon the embryotic mass, 
which act as truly in response to their time and ob- 
ject as the compound forces which exhibit and pre- 
serve the harmonious movements of the heavenly 
bodies, and of the developments of which, in fine, the 
muscles are not the cause, but the humble, though 
frequently the modifying, instruments." — {The Lancet^ 
as quoted in Phren. Journal^ September 1833.) I am 
glad that men like Dr Milligan, who are full of learned 
nonsense, do not become Phrenologists, as they would 
be sure to injure the progress of the science by put- 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAX OF THE MIND ? lol 

ting it before the public in a form which coald hardly 
be understood by any ordinary being. When Dr 
Milligan used such bombastic language on a subject 
which he did not understand, he should just have 
gone the length of adopting Mr Hope's theory of the 
formation of man. " When," says Mr Hope, the 
author of " Anastasius," " in the progress of creation, 
the elements of organised substance, by successive 
combinations and decombinations, had arrived at a 
condition suited to the formation of beings, not only 
vital and sentient, but intellectual, these elements, 
meeting from opposite points by pressure, gradually 
accumulated and combined, until they resulted in 
man.'^ — (Ryan's Medical and Surgical Journal for 
February 1832.) When Moses is overturned by Mr 
Hope, Phrenologists will tremble for Dr Milligan, but 
certainly not till then. Dr Milligan unquestionably 
spoke the downright truth, when he said he could not 
"be serious" with the Phrenologists "without being 
ridiculous." I hope he was serious, and I am sure it 
cannot be doubted, as the Lancet remarks, that he 
could not easily be made more ridiculous. 

There are few questions which have given rise to a 
greater variety of opinion than the one which has 
reference to the organ which is specially designed as 
the material instrument for the manifestations of the 
mind. Erasistratus, we are informed, placed the soul 
in the meninges ; Herophilus, and Auranti, in the 



152 PHRENOLOGY. 

ventricles ; Van Helmont, in the stomach ; Descartes, 
in the pineal gland ; Wharton, and Schellhammer, in 
the origin of the spinal marrow ; Drelincourt, in the 
cerebellum ; Boutekoe, Maria, La Peyronie, and Lan- 
cisi, in the corpus callosum ; Digbj, in the septum 
lucidum ; Willis, in the corpora striata ; Vieussens, in 
the centrum ovale ; Servetus, in the aqueduct of Sil- 
vius ; Molinetti, and Wrisberg, in the pons Varolii ; 
Soemmering, in the serosity of the ventricles ; Pytha- 
goras, Plato, Galen, Haller, and most of the moderns, 
in the brain generally. Many parties, even in the 
present day, imagine that the passions have their 
special seat in the heart and abdominal viscera. Put- 
ting aside, however, in the meantime, the positive evi- 
dence we have for connecting them with the brain, I 
would remark, it is somewhat ridiculous "to consti- 
tute the heart the seat of cruelty in the tiger ; of 
gentleness in the lamb ; of fidelity in the dog ; of 
perfidy in the cat ; of courage in the bison ; and of 
timidity in the hare.'^ — {Gall.) 

Professor Eicherand exhibited little power of dis- 
crimination when he said, "Eeduce by bleeding this 
intrepid warrior — who «has braved death in twenty 
battles — you make him weak and pusillanimous ; in 
vain will his cranium exhibit then the bump, which 
Gall is pleased to consider indicative of bravery." 
Does Richerand really imagine the warrior becomes a 
coward the moment he becomes weak ? What would 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 153 

Nelson, NapoleoD, Wellington, Havelock, and Garibaldi 
say to such a doctrine ? Would the loss of a little 
blood have made them run away? To say that 
cowardice is a part of their nature, either mental or 
corporeal, would be to traduce the character of these 
mighty warriors. You might weaken the action of all 
the powers they possessed, but that would not put a 
new one into their nature, or alter the balance of those 
they already had. Instead of one faculty being de- 
stroyed and another substituted in its place, the 
activity of all the faculties would be reduced together. 
Even supposing that the power of all the organs of the 
brain was reduced by a severe bleeding, it would not, 
in the slightest degree, affect the question as to 
whether bravery is connected with the heart or 
brain, because the bleeding would have fully as much 
influence over the heart as over the brain ; conse- 
quently, Richerand^s objection will not hold good in 
this point of view. His argument would not even 
assist in proving that courage was a pure mental 
faculty, in accordance with the metaphysical theory, 
unless he could first prove that the mental faculty 
was in full action after the power of the brain was 
thoroughly extinguished. It would be just as reason- 
able to argue that we do not see through our eyes, 
because we lose the power of sight in a fainting-fit, as 
to maintain that the organ of courage is not in the 
brain, because its manifestation, for the time being, is 



154 PHKENOLOGY. 

weakened by a heavy bleeding. The one argument is 
quite as good as the other. I might therefore turn 
round on Eicherand, and use the following language 
after his own fashion : — Eeduce by bleeding this clear- 
sighted man, whose eye has scanned many battle-fields, 
you make him weak and incapable of vision ; in vain 
will his face exhibit then the eye which Eicherand is 
pleased to call the organ of sight ; and this plainly 
proves we are entirely wrong in supposing that the 
eyes have anything to do with the power of vision. 
What think you of this, Mr Eeader ? Would you 
have any confidence in such an argument ? Professor 
Eicherand' s objection may be considered powerful 
when directed against Phrenology ; but if it were 
produced on any other subject, it would be looked 
upon as beneath the notice of a simpleton. 

If the affections and passions were connected with 
the abdominal viscera, as some have supposed, they 
would of necessity be in proportion to the develop- 
ment of these parts, because size is a measure of 
power. I should like to know, however, how this 
theory could be reconciled with the placid disposition 
of the cow and the sheep, in whom the abdominal 
organs are so enormously developed. There cannot be 
the slightest reason for supposing that the heart, the 
lungs, the stomach, the liver, the kidneys, and the 
bowels, are in any special sense the organs for the 
manifestations of the mind. The heart may be struct- 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 155 

urally diseased, the lungs may be extensively dis- 
organised, the stomach and bowels may be ulcerated, 
the liver may be enlarged, and the kidneys may be 
organically changed, without directly obstructing the 
operations of the mind on any point whatever. In 
this respect, they differ entirely from the brain, as we 
shall see hereafter, when I come to consider the effects 
of injuries and diseases of the brain. In any case 
where the mental manifestations seem to be affected 
by the state of the stomach, or any of the other organs 
I have mentioned, a careful investigation will show 
that the effect is produced in a round-about, secondary 
way, in consequence of the sympathy which exists 
through the nervous connexion of those parts with 
the brain. 

Some think that the heart must be the seat of the 
affections, because the Scriptures so frequently refer 
to the depravity and wickedness of the human heart. 
I will yield to no man in the support of the Scriptural 
doctrine of the utter depravity of man ; but I maintain 
that the depravity pertains to his entire nature, and 
does not reside in that mass of flesh called the heart. 
There is a principle of Biblical interpretation under- 
lying this question, which, when rightly understood, 
will not only clear us of difficulties regarding this 
point, but will also cut through the root of a great 
number of religious errors which are currently received 
as true in the present day. If we wish to ascertain the 



156 PHEENOLOGY. 

meaning of any difficult, doubtful, or disputed word 
or sentence in the Scriptures, how are we to arrive at 
it ? Are we to judge by the meaning which the words 
may bear by use in our own generation? Certainly 
not. We must go back, and find out the exact meaning 
which the words bore in the Hebrew or Greek language 
up to the time at which the Scriptures were written. 
Great errors, and it is to be feared some of them wilful, 
have been made by neglecting this point. In inter- 
preting Scripture, it is not of the slightest importance 
what meaning may be attached to a particular word 
now ; but what was the meaning of the word in the 
Hebrew, or the Greek, at the time the Old, or New, 
Testament was written. This is the point which should 
always be kept in view if we honestly wish to get the 
exact meaning of Scripture. A word might have come 
by use to bear an entirely different meaning now to 
what it did in apostolic days ; but no man, having 
any pretensions to honesty of purpose, could say the 
apostles are bound by the altered meaning which usage 
has given to the word since their time. No man would 
attempt to interpret human writings on the principle 
which I am combating. Why then should the Scriptures 
be treated differently ? It can be for no other object 
than to serve a purpose. The Scriptures could not be 
a revelation from God to man unless they were given 
in language which was capable of being understood by 
those to whom they were immediately delivered. If 



IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND? 157 

the language was not tg be understood in the meaning 
which it then had, but in the meaning which it might 
happen to have at some centuries after the book was 
written, its interpretation could not be made out by 
any man alive at that time, and consequently it could 
not possibly have been a revelation at all. I am sure 
this principle must at once commend itself to every 
rational and honest man ; and if we kept it constantly 
in view, we would have comparatively little trouble in 
interpreting Scripture. If any person, however, doubts 
the deep depravity of human nature, let him read the 
works of some learned divines whose interest lies in 
using every exertion in their power to conceal these 
principles from the general public, and to argue as if 
they had no existence, and I am confident he will at 
once be converted to a belief in the total corruption 
of human nature. It is really refreshing and delightful 
to find a man who is thoroughly in earnest in searching 
after and adopting truth, let the consequences be what 
they may ; but there is nothing more distressing and 
humiliating than the sight of a man who is using all 
his energies and ingenuity in hiding, evading, and per- 
verting truth, at a time when its open and candid 
avowal would mar his pecuniary condition or his social 
elevation in the world. The one is a specimen of real 
nobility, the other is worse than a crawling reptile. If 
we go into a court of law and hear a man on his oath 
fencing every answer with the greatest ingenuity, and 



158 PHEENOLOGY. 

in such a way as to darken the case and evade the 
truth, because he feels that his cause cannot stand 
honest deahng, what are we to think of him ? Are we 
to make excuses for his innocence and simpHcity, and 
for the uncertainty which usually hangs about legal 
decisions ? If we do so, are we not as guilty as the per- 
jured villain we are endeavouring to screen ? Would 
any honest man become his advocate ? No. His blood 
would boil with virtuous indignation at the very 
thought. Why then are we to screen a learned divine 
if he follows a similar course ? In place of allowing his 
profession of Christianity to be a cloak for him, it 
should rather be the means of forcing us to unmask 
his deep hypocrisy. There are plenty of men who are 
not endowed with the natural capacity for seeing their 
own false positions. Their simplicity is so evident 
that there is no possibility of mistaking them. We 
should always think a pity of such men, and, having 
given them credit for honesty of purpose, we should 
recommend them to turn their attention to some call- 
ing for which their Creator has endowed them. We 
must be careful, however, not to use the same leniency 
towards the other class, who employ learning, ingenuity, 
research, and eminent powers of special pleading in hid- 
ing the truth, and in placing false principles in such a 
plausible light that it requires more ability than falls to 
the lot of the general run of men to unravel the mys- 
tery and separate the truth from the falsehood. To 



IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 159 

my thinking, a man of this description is far more 
despicable than a murderer or highway robber. They 
may have some principle of honour left about them ; 
but he is a sneaking, low, unprincipled creature that 
deserves to be shunned as a disgrace to even fallen 
humanity. 

A principle of interpretation similar to the one I 
have already laid down, will enable us to deal with 
those portions of the sacred writings which refer to the 
sun as standing still, and to the heart of man as being 
deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. The 
Scriptures were never intended to teach us philosophy, 
and therefore it was by no means necessary that the 
references which they make to^ and the illustrations 
which they draw from, philosophical questions, should 
be in strict accordance with the improvements and dis- 
coveries of after ages. If it had been necessary for 
them to be in perfect agreement, on every point, with 
true philosophy, they could not have been understood 
by the inhabitants of the world at the time they were 
written, and consequently could not have been a revela- 
tion to them at all. Nay, more, on this principle, they 
could not be a revelation even to us at the present day, 
because we have not yet arrived at perfection on some 
philosophical points touched on in the sacred pages. 
When it was said the sun stood still, and the heart 
was deceitful, there was not the slightest difficulty in 
understanding what was meant, because such expres- 



160 PHRENOLOGY. 

sions were in direct harmony with the extent of philo- 
sophical knowledge in that day ; but if the discoveries 
of later ages had been anticipated, the statements 
would have been wholly unintelligible to the people, 
as there were no Galileos, Newtons, and "Galls, in that 
generation. We know now it was the earth, not the 
sun, that stood still, and that the brain, not the heart, 
is the material instrument of the affections and pas- 
sions ; but the ancients were entirely ignorant on these 
points, and could not have understood them. The 
Scriptures were written on the proper principle, and 
consequently the parties to whom they were delivered 
at first had no difficulty in understanding the intention 
of their expressions in accordance with their own 
amount of philosophical knowledge ; and neither have 
we in the face of the enlightenment of the present 
age. The Word of God was intelligible at the time it 
was given, is so now, and ever shall be till the end of 
the world. 

If any person now attempts to bind me down by 
Scripture to make the heart, in place of the brain, the 
seat of the affections, I will compel him, by virtue of his 
own arguments, to believe in the daily motions of the 
sun instead of the earth, and thus force him to over- 
turn the discoveries of modern astronomy. The same 
principle will apply in both cases. If the one be 
good, so is the other. When a new heart is promised 
in Scripture, it does not mean that the present literal 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 161 

heart is to be taken out and another put in its place. 
An interpretation of this description would not satisfy 
the mind of any man. It just means that a new nature, 
of a spiritual kind^ is to be planted within us, which 
will keep up a constant warfare with the old nature, 
and thus control the thoughts, feelings, affections, and 
passions of the entire man. 

If, then, the heart be not the special seat of the 
affections, nor the abdominal viscera of the passions, 
as some have imagined, where is the organ which is 
more especially appropriated to all the manifestations 
of the mind ? I answer, the Brain ; and my readers, 
whether they think it or not, all practically hold the 
same opinion. On theoretical grounds some would 
deny it, but, in practice, they are all absolutely com- 
pelled to admit it. Men may talk a great deal of non- 
sense, but when they are brought to a plain practical 
test, they are obliged to yield to the dictates of com- 
mon sense. Suppose, for example, a man falls from 
the house-top to the street, and that he is taken up in 
an insensible condition, — devoid of all passion, affec- 
tion, and intellectual ability, — what part of his body 
would you suppose was injured? If a surgeon were 
called in, would you expect him to commence his 
examination with the heart, the lungs, the liver, the 
stomach, the kidneys, the arms, the legs, or the big 
toe, in order to ascertain the source of the mental im- 
becihty ? K he did so, would you place the slightest 

L 



162 PHRENOLOGY. 

confidence in his judgment? Would you not think 
him a perfect booby if he did not go right straight to 
the head at once, as the seat of injury ? To be sure 
you would ; and this plainly proves that the public 
universally believe the brain to be the special instru- 
ment of the mind. ^' Man," says an old writer, " doth 
not, I suppose, find himself to think^ see, hear, &c., all 
over, in any part of his body ; but the seat of cogitation 
and reflection he finds in his head; and the nerves by 
which the knowledge of external objects are conveyed 
to him, all tend to the same place." — (The Religion of 
Nature delineated. Glasgow, 1746.) 

Some of our opponents tell us that injuries and 
diseases have occurred in every part of the brain, in 
different cases, without in the slightest degree affect- 
ing the mental operations on any point. In their over- 
zeal, however, they seem to have overlooked the fact 
that these cases, if true, would prove a great deal too 
much. They would not only overturn Phrenology, 
but they would also set aside, at once and for ever, all 
the opinions which are held, regarding the functions of 
the brain, by those Physiologists who have adduced 
them. Take, for example, the Physiological experi- 
ments which have been performed by Magendie, Le 
Gallois, Kolando, Flourens, and Bernard, and see how 
they bear upon this point. Owing to the impossibility 
of always dividing the exact same fibres of the brain 
in living animals, the results of their experiments did 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND'? 163 

not agree, and could not agree, on all points ; and 
therefore, to a certain extent, are very unsatisfactory. 
But they agree on, and prove, one great point, namely, 
that the brain is not a single, but a compound organ. 
The experiments produced extremely different results 
when performed on different parts of the brain. Hence 
it follows that all parts of the brain do not perform 
the same function. If they did, the same results 
would follow, no matter what portion was cut into. 
Indeed, we might gather the same ideas from our know- 
ledge of the five senses. The portion of brain which 
is connected with sight, cannot be the same which 
serves for hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting. 
Hence we have undoubted evidence that all parts of 
the brain do not perform the same function, and that 
in place of being single the brain is a compound organ. 
From this we ' see that the opponents who allege that 
injuries have occurred, at different times, to every 
portion of the brain, without producing any effects on 
mental manifestation, cannot be stating facts. They 
are placing Pathology in direct opposition to Physio- 
logy, and these two should fight it out before they 
attack Phrenology. Let them first settle their own 
quarrels before they interfere with their neighbour. 
Besides, these assertions of our opponents would not 
hold good even if the brain were a single organ, like a 
muscle, because if we cut away the half of a muscle we 
most undoubtedly curtail its action by one-half ; we 



164 PHRElSrOLOOY. 

interfere so far with its power of manifestation. So- 
that, take it as you will, you must come to the con- 
clusion, that, if these opponents could really produce 
unmistakable cases to support their assertions, it would 
follow, as a matter of course, that the mind has no 
more to do with the brain than with the watch which 
these wiseacres carry in their waistcoat pocket ; and 
this is a result which they never seem to have antici- 
pated. If one portion of the brain can be destroyed 
without curtailing, impeding, altering, weakening, or 
abridging the operations of the mind on any point, of 
course that portion had no necessary connexion with 
the mind, and was of no special use to it. And if the 
same can be said of another, and another, and another 
piece, till we go over the whole brain, it is as plain as 
the light of heaven that the brain has nothing in par- 
ticular to do with the mind at all 1 As far as the mind 
is concerned, a headless man would be as good as one 
with a head on him I There is no end to the folly and 
weakness of our opponents. I will take the liberty, 
however, of giving all their assertions, regarding 
injuries and disease, a flat contradiction, and demand 
of them one single authenticated and accurately ob- 
served and reported case in proof of their opinions. 
Until they do this, which they have never yet at- 
tempted with anything like philosophical accuracy, I 
must remain an unbeliever in their doctrines. 

" The cases," says the Edinburgh Review, " in which 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 165 

•portions of various sizes have been removed from 
almost all regions of this organ, without the slightest 
affection either of intellect or inclinations, are numer- 
ous and most unequivocal." — (No. 49, p. 243.) Such 
is the sweeping assertion of the Edinhurgh Review ; 
but the consistent and philosophical writer had not 
long penned the statement till he gave himself a most 
delightful and instructive contradiction in the following 
terms: — "We will not say that there are any facts 
which absolutely demonstrate that the brain is not the 
organ of intellect." — (No. 49, p. 245.) You will not 
say there are ''any facts .'" The only conclusion we 
can draw, then, is, that what you have stated as facts, 
on the 243d page, are pure fabrications. If they were 
facts, they would certainly prove that the brain is not 
the organ for the manifestation of the intellect or 
inclinations. .These two extracts are calculated to give 
us a high estimate of the calibre of our opponents ! 

" The truth is," says Dr Roget, " that there is not a 
single part of the encephalon, [or brain,] which has 
not, in one case or other, been impaired, destroyed, or 
found defective, without any apparent change in the 
sensitive, intellectual, or moral faculties." — {Physiology^ 
vol. i. p. 57.) If so, Dr Roget, what is the use of the 
brain ? It cannot be necessary for the manifestations 
of the mind, if your statement be correct ; and we 
know from those cases in which children, although 
bom without brain, have lived up to the period of, and 



166 PHKENOLOGY. 

for some time after, birth, that it is not essential for 
secretion, nutrition, excretion, circulation, and motion. 
What, then, is the use of it ? Is it merely for orna- 
ment, or is it a useless appendage — a freak of nature ? 
If Dr Roget's statement were true, it would answer as 
good a purpose for him to have his skull filled with a 
turnip as a brain. If there be not a single part of the 
whole brain which has not been found deficient, im- 
paired, or destroyed, in one case or other, without pro- 
ducing any change in, or curtailment of, the mental 
manifestations, it requires no argument to prove that 
the mind, in exhibiting its action in this life, is as little 
connected with the brain as it is with the stars in the 
firmament. 

The opinions of Morgagni, Bonetus, and Haller, on 
this subject, are reiterated by Dr A. T. Thomson in 
his lectures on Medical Jurisprudence as reported in 
Ryan, vol. vii. p. 162. " We find," says he, " that the 
texture of every part of the brain may be morbidly 
altered from its natural state, and yet all the faculties 
of the mind remain entire. Abscesses have been 
formed in the brain ; tumours have been found in it, 
which have slowly enlarged and hardened ; its arteries 
have been ossified ; indeed, every portion of it, in 
difierent instances, have exhibited morbid alterations 
of structure, and yet the mind has remained entire." 
I presume Dr Thomson, in speaking of the mind re- 
maining entire, means entire in its manifestations. 



IS THE BKAIN THE OKGAN OF THE MIND? 167 

This is the only view which could lend any weight 
or force to his argument on the point on which he is 
reasoning. In place of stopping to give a denial to his 
alleged facts, I will just ask him to reconcile his state- 
ment here with those he delivered m his very next 
lecture, when he said, '* In mania, the pia mater has 
been found thickened and studded with small globular, 
spongy bodies, and in a few instances ossified. The 
spongy bodies are situated chiefly under the crown and 
forehead, sometimes as large as a pea. The ossifica- 
tions are commonly met with on the anterior surface 
of the anterior lobe of the brain, on the upper surface of 
each hemisphere, and on the flat surface lying on the falx. 
In the substance of the brain indications of inflamma- 
tion are common, sometimes hydatids are found, and 
occasionally an insupportable foetor is exhaled on 
cutting into the brain. In many instances, water is 
found in the ventricles. This has been the case in all 
the brains of madmen which I have examined." I 
must leave Dr Thomson to square the opinions he 
uttered in the one lecture with those he delivered in 
the next. The task is one which I would not like to 
undertake. If it be true that every part of the brain 
may be morbidly altered in its structure, whilst all the 
mental manifestations are quite perfect, how could it 
happen that any disease of the brain could ever alter 
the mental manifestations ? The thing is impossible. 
If the mind be perfectly independent in one case, it 



168 PHRENOLOGY. 

must be so in every other case. There is no way of 
getting out of this difficulty at all. It is no relief 
whatever to say that the brain is a single mass, and 
that every part of it performs perfectly the same 
function, because it would then follow that the mani- 
festation of the mind could never be altered in the 
nature or bent of its action on one point without 
being altered on every point. There could be no 
insanity unless the entire mass was diseased, and such 
a case is nowhere to be found. In fact, the opponents 
of Phrenology are driven to a corner. If cerebral dis- 
ease be found to produce deranged mental manifes- 
tations in some cases, the mind is not perfectly inde- 
pendent of the brain in its manifestations in this life. 
Not only so, but we are certain that some change 
must have taken place in the brain in every case in 
which we have deranged mental manifestations, unless 
we hold that the mind can manifest itself without the 
brain altogether, or that the disease may be in the 
mind itself. Now, we know that the mind cannot 
manifest itself without the brain, because if it could, 
it would never be affected by disease of the brain in 
any case. If it could act independently in one case, it 
could do so in every case, — more especially so, on the 
supposition of the brain being a single organ. The 
only alternative, then, left for the anti-phrenologist is 
to maintain that the disease is in the mind itself, — 
that there is, as Dr A. T. Thomson holds, " a malady 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIN D *? lt)9 

purely of the mind/^ It is remarkable, however, that 
Dr Thomson did not see that this expression is quite 
inconsistent with his avowal of his belief in the im- 
materiality of mind. If the mind be capable of dis- 
ease, it must be material and mortal, as I will show 
hereafter. 

It appears, however, the Phrenologist has a more 
difficult case, if possible, to deal with than any I have 
yet alluded to_, as Bartholin, Duverney, Moreschi, Giro, 
and Ultini found the brain of the ox completely ossi- 
fied, whilst the animal retained all its faculties, and 
senses of smell, taste, &c., as perfect as ever. This 
certainly is a poser. But it was rather unfortunate 
for these accurate observers, that, when cut across, 
the mass contained no cavities, no thalami, no corpora 
striata, no third and fourth ventricle, no corpora 
quadrigemina, no pineal gland ; and no trace of the 
origin of nerves on its base. In short, that it had not 
a single character belonging to the brain. The crown- 
ing point of all, however, was that the accurate 
observations of these philosophers were sadly dis- 
figured by a butcher at Modena, who, on making a 
careful inspection of a case, discovered that what was 
taken for an ossified brain was nothing more or less 
than a morbid projection of bone from the inside of 
the skull, and that the real brain was found under- 
neath it ! (Spurzheim.) The discovery made by the 
butcher must have been a sad blow to Dumas, who 



170 PHRENOLOGY. 

had adduced the above cases as a complete refutation 
of the doctrines of Gall. Well might Gall and Spurz- 
heim exclaim, " If ever a brain be ossified, and the 
animal preserve its intellectual faculties, we shall be 
the first to declare our doctrine of the functions of the 
brain a purely chimerical fabrication." We might go 
farther than this, and make the same declaration con- 
cerning the opinions of all our Physiological opponents 
concerning the functions of the brain. If Duverney, 
Moreschi, and Giro are right, the Phrenologists, 
Physiologists, Pathologists, Physicians, and general 
public, are no better than simpletons, in believing 
that the brain is in any way related to the operations 
of the mind, or to the manifestations of the external 
senses. 

If a Physiologist would leave his judgment so far 
behind him as to assert, that every portion of the 
optic and auditory nerves had been found, in different 
cases, diseased, destroyed, defective, or altogether 
wanting, without in the slightest degree affecting the 
power, accuracy, and extent of seeing and hearing ; 
and also that the power of seeing or hearing was 
altered or destroyed, whilst every material organ con- 
nected therewith remained perfect and in health, 
what would be thought of him ? Would not every 
ocuHst and aurist in the realm pronounce him astray ? 
Certainly they would. And if he persisted and said 
he had seen such cases, they would just set him down 



IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND 1 171 

as one who was so incapable of making observations 
on others that he would require some person to take 
care of himself. What, then, are we to think of those 
men who imagine they have overturned Phrenology 
by arguments of a similar kind ? Do they expect we 
can bow with reverence to their philosophy ? If they 
do, they are greatly mistaken. When they inform us 
that they have heard of, or seen, cases in which every 
portion of the brain, in different instances, has been 
diseased, destroyed, or absent, without in the slightest 
degree affecting the manifestations of the mind, we 
must just tell them that, in regard to what they have 
heard, they are credulous dupes, and in relation to 
what they have seen, they are utterly incompetent of 
making practical observations. 

As a set-off against the assertions I have been com- 
bating, I shall give an extract from Professor MUller, 
who is considered to be one of the best Physiologists 
of the present day, and who, recollect, is so far opposed 
to Phrenology that he says it is no better than alchemy 
and astrology. It surely ought to be sufficient to 
satisfy my opponents, when I give them testimony 
against themselves out of the mouth of one of their 
own authorities. *' Every cause," says Mdller, " which 
disturbs the action of the brain slowly or suddenly 
affects at the same time the mind. Inflammation of 
the brain is never unattended with delirium, and at a 
kter period with stupor ; pressure on the cerebrum 



172 PHEENOLOGY. 

whether produced by depressed bone, foreign bodies, 
serum, blood, or pus, always gives rise to delirium or 
stupor, according as there is or is not irritation with 
the pressure. . . . Injury of the cerebral hemispheres 
in animals gives rise to stupor and loss of memory ; 
and in most kmatics considerable structural changes 
have taken place in the brain, although in other cases, 
particularly when the affection is inherited, the 
changes that have affected the microscopic fibrous 
texture cannot be recognised with our imperfect 
means of investigation and defective knowledge." — 
{Physiology.) And Professor Rostan, who is not a 
Phrenologist, lays it down as an axiom that "there 
is no lesion of function without a co-existent organic 
lesion." — {Medico- Chirurgical Review, for Oct. 1838, p. 
598.) 

Sir William C. Ellis, in his Treatise on Insanity, 
reports that out of two hundred and twenty-one cases 
of dissection, he found two hundred and seven of them 
with decided marks of disease. Of the remainder, four 
were idiots from birth, and consequently must be ex- 
eluded from the list. So that in all his examinations, 
he found only ten cases in which he could not detect 
organic disease of the brain ; and of these ten, seven 
were recent cases, being only about a month ill. — 
{Medico-Chirurgical Revievi, for July 1838, p. 122.) 
On the 24th June 1 845, Dr Webster called the atten- 
tion of the Medico-Chirurgical Society of London to 



IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 173 

the history of one hundred and eight post-mortem 
examinations of the brain, by Mr Laurence of London, 
at the Bethlehem Hospital, in every one of which dis- 
tinct organic disease was detected. These were the 
only cases examined, and consequently Dr Webster 
has not selected them for any purpose. He has given 
the whole of them. — {PhrenologicalJournal, vol. xix. p. 

m.) 

Although in the great majority of cases of insanity 
in which the brain has been examined after death, 
unmistakable evidence of organic change has been 
found, it by no means follows that we must expect to 
be able to discover a change in every case which occurs, 
although it exists. This would suppose our means of 
investigation to be far more accurate and minute than 
they are. It is not only possible, but it is certain 
that the brain and nervous system may be diseased 
during life without our being able, with our present 
appliances, to detect the change, which has taken 
place, after death. Who, for example, can doubt that 
tic doloureux, hydrophobia, epilepsy, toothache, te- 
tanus, convulsions, and paralysis are real affections of 
the nervous system. And yet, in multitudes of in- 
stances, it is impossible, with our present means of 
investigation, to ascertain the existence of any organic 
lesion. If this be the case, and no person can deny it, 
is it reasonable to expect the Phrenologist to discover 
the organic change in every case of disease of the 



174 PHRENOLOGY. 

brain ? On what principle of fair play could this be 
demanded of him ? Is he to be considered so super- 
human, that he must be compelled to submit to a test 
which no other man can submit to ? When our 
opponents can demonstrate, in every case, the organic 
changes produced in the nerve by tic doloureux, I will 
undertake to point out the molecular changes in the 
brain in every instance of insanity. 

In order to be able to detect exceedingly minute 
shades of organic change in the structure of the brain, 
we would require to have a perfect knowledge of the 
exact state of its appearance in the healthy condition. 
Unless we are thoroughly informed of its healthy ap- 
pearance, we are not competent to judge of its dis- 
eased state. If the change were very evident and well 
marked, we could have no difficulty ; but if it were in 
a less appreciable condition, we would be entirely at 
sea, or perhaps would foolishly draw the conclusion 
that no change whatever had taken place. In point of 
fact, few men are so thoroughly experienced, and so 
accurate in their nature, as to be entirely competent 
and trustworthy in delicate cases of investigation. It 
has been well remarked by Georget, "that we are 
seldom enabled to see a brain perfectly sound, since 
few patients die without having been affected by fever 
and delirium, phenomena which depend upon irritation 
of this organ. A truly pathological state of the brain 
is therefore most generally taken for a sound one. . . . 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 175 

The inflammatory state of the brain is far from being 
known in all its organic gradations of colour, and yet 
this state must very often occur. ... I am convinced 
that, in the course of a few years, the pathological 
anatomy of the brain will make great advances, and 
that few bodies of insane persons will be examined, 
without exhibiting appreciable traces of affection of 
this organ." 

The introduction of the microscope has brought us 
to a new era in the examination of the brain. It has 
already thrown considerable light on its minute struc- 
ture, both in the healthy and diseased state, and great 
things may yet be expected from it. Professor Jacu- 
bowitsch has made more than twenty-five thousand 
preparations, under its use, from the brain and 
nervous system. His researches " have already shown 
that in affections of the nervous system, in which 
the most minute ordinary examination could detect 
no material lesion^ such lesion was nevertheless con- 
siderable, since one or more of these (natural) orders 
of elements had become greatly altered in their form, 
or even had undergone destruction. This single result 
sufficiently indicates the brilliant horizon that may be 
opening to the pathological anatomist." There can be 
little doubt it will yet be seen that the texture of the 
brain is really altered in every case of what is called 
mental disease. Those who wish to see an accurate 
and interesting detail of Jacubowitsch's discoveries, 



176 PHRENOLOGY. 

may do so by referring to the London Medical Times 
and Gazette, iov the 17th Oct. 1857, p. 405. 

That the mental operations are performed through 
the brain, is capable of being proved by an immense 
number of facts. Indeed, the fact is so patent to all, 
that it would hardly be necessary to refer to it again, 
were it not that multitudes who are disposed to admit 
it in words, overlook it in practice, and, in so far as 
regards their own conduct and the educational de- 
mands which they make on their children, proceed 
apparently on the supposition that the mind has no 
connexion whatever with the body. The practice 
founded on this fallacious and thoughtless assump- 
tion, is fraught with so much mischief, and brings 
such dreadful consequences in its train, that it would 
be exceedingly difficult to over-estimate the impor- 
tance of fixing the attention of the public on the 
matter. A great deal of the practical evils on this 
head, may fairly be laid at the door of the erroneous 
teaching of some of the supporters of the metaphysi- 
cal school. For example, Dr Prichard, in his work on 
Nervous Diseases, says, " The operations of judgment, 
or the rational faculty, as well as the phenomena of 
passion or emotion, desire or aversion, love or hatred, 
are mental processes or affections of the soul, with 
which I think it must be concluded, that we have no 
proof of the connexion of any co-operating organic 
process. And this conclusion may be drawn perhaps 



IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND ? 177 

more confidently with respect to volition." He further 
states regarding the propensities and sentiments, that 
he is " acquainted with no fact, either in physiology or 
pathology, which furnishes any ground for presuming 
that those mental phenomena take place through the 
instrumentality of any corporeal ^irocess whatever, ^^ In 
the 88th number of the Edinburgh Review^ Lord 
Jeffrey says, ^' There is not the smallest reason for 
supposing that the mind ever operates through the 
agency of any material organs^ except in its percep- 
tion of material objects, or in the spontaneous move- 
ments of the body which it inhabits." He further 
speaks of it as a " strange attempt to assign material 
organs for such purely mental operations as have no 
immediate reference to matter." From these obser- 
vations, as well as from the general tenor of the 
article, it is quite evident he holds that our bodily 
organs have nothing to do with the powers of re- 
flection and imagination, or with the moral sentiments, 
I shall take an opportunity hereafter of proving that 
metaphysical opinions, such as those propounded by 
Dr Prichard and Lord Jeffrey, must either drive us to 
the highly important practical conclusion, that no 
amount of deep and continued reflection, and no flight 
of imagination, can ever produce fatigue, and result, as 
the public have hitherto been foolish enough to believe, 
in insanity and imbecility ; or else land us directly in 

materiahsm by compelling us to look upon the mind, 

M 



178 PHRENOLOGY. 

instead of the brain, as the seat of the fatigue and 
exhaustion which are produced by a lengthened pro- 
cess of deep reflection, or the constant indulgence of 
a fertile imagination. But, in the meantime, I shall 
add a few more proofs to those already given in sup- 
port of the proposition that the brain is the organ of 
the mind. 

It may be safely laid down as a fundamental prin- 
ciple, that the All-wise Author of Nature has made 
nothing in vain. There is a purpose for everything, 
and everything fulfils the purpose for which it was 
originally designed. Hence I am entitled to ask my 
opponents what purpose they consider the brain fulfils 
in the animal economy ? Most certainly, if it be not 
the organ of the mind, its functions are as yet almost 
entirely unknown. Some may say it gives energy to 
the spinal marrow, and through it to the whole muscu- 
lar system ; but that its duties cannot possibly be con- 
fined to this is proved by the fact that man has a much 
larger, and by far more complicated, brain than the 
lower animals, although he has not anything like the 
same amount of muscular energy and power which 
many of them possess, — " He can neither grapple with 
the gorilla, run with the deer, see with the owl, nor 
smell with the hound." Again, if we look into the 
manner of our creation, we will find, as a general rule, 
that the difierent organs of the body are more or less 
protected from external injury, in exact proportion to 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 170 

the importance of the office, which they have to falhl 
in the animal machine. In this point of view, the 
brain stands pre-eminent, as it is protected on all sides 
by a solid case of bone. " Nature,'' says Magendie, 
" has been extremely careful to defend it against every 
injury arising from surrounding objects." Hence, >ve 
are fully justified in concluding that it performs a pro- 
portionally high and important duty. This idea is 
strongly corroborated by the fact that it is supplied 
with a much larger quantity of blood, in proportion to 
its size, than any other organ in the body. According 
to Munro, one-tenth, but, according to Haller, one- 
fifth of all the blood in the system goes to the brain. 
Further, I ask, for what purpose are the nerves for see- 
ing, hearing, smelling, and tasting, immediately and 
directly connected with the brain, if they do not serve 
for conveying the impressions of external objects 
through it to the mind ? 

The intimate connexion which subsists between the 
mind and the brain is well illustrated by the efiects of 
what is called sudden mental impressions. Take the 
following examples : — " Juventius Thalma, on being 
told that a triumph had been decreed to him for 
having subdued Corsica, fell down dead before the 
altar at which he was ofi'ering up his thanksgiving. 
Zimmerman has related the circumstance of a family 
in Holland being reduced to indigence ; the elder 
brother passed over to the East Indies, acquired con- 



180 PHRENOLOGY. 

siderable fortune there, and, returning home, presented 
his sister with the richest jewel. The young woman, 
at this unexpected change of fortune, became motion- 
less and died.^^— {Ryan's Journal, vol. i. p. 334.) "A 
young gentleman," says Dr Gaitskell, " having £10,000 
unemployed, placed it in the hands of his broker. 
The sum was invested in a stock, which had subse- 
quently an enormous rise ; the broker prudently sold 
it, and the £10,000 became £60,000. When the young 
gentleman was informed of the result, an idiotic state 
of mind was immediately prcMuced, from which he 
never recovered ; his constant occupation is playing 
with his fingers, and continually repeating the words, 
' Sixty thousand pounds.' An accomplished young 
lady," he continues, " being on a visit at a house where 
there was a human skeleton, her giddy young friends 
determined to play her a trick by placing it in her bed 
at night. In the morning they found her playing with 
its fingers, a confirmed idiot, from which state she 
never recovered." ^' A lady was walking through the 
street in Norwich when a man, who was dressed up so 
as to resemble the jaws of an alligator, suddenly 
peeped over her shoulder. She immediately fainted, 
and had a premature confinement." — {.Dr Gooch.) 
'' An Irish girl, aged seventeen, who had borne a good 
character, was tried at Stafford for having stolen a 
gown and petticoat, and was sentenced to seven years 
transportation. It is now believed she merely took the 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 181 

goods to wear oq some particular occasion, without 
any intention of keeping them. She heard of the 
judgment, and remained stupefied ; in twenty-four 
hours she was a lunatic, without hope of recovery. 
She was a remarkably handsome girl, but from the 
period of her sentence her health visibly declined, and 
her hair has actually turned gray." — {Phrenological 
Journal, vol. xvii. p. 318.) '' A young lady, aged six- 
teen, residing in Wighmore Street, London, was at- 
tacked with convulsive fits for upwards of two hours, 
on the return home of a brother whom she had believed 
was dead for the last three years, and on recovery from 
her fit she had lost the power of articulation and was 
seemingly idiotic." — {Coleraine Chronicle, Dec. 27, 
1845.) '' On Monday Mr Bedford held an inquest at 
the Old George, Stanhope Street, Clare Market, on the 
body of Henry Solomon, aged seventy-three, for many 
years a respectable tailor, living in the above street, 
A few days since deceased was a successful candidate 
at an election for pensioners on the Holborn' Estate 
Charity, and ever since he displayed great excite- 
ment, caused by joy at his good fortune. His election 
insured him £30, and a residence in the almshouses 
when completed. He received the first instalment of 
his pension on Wednesday last, and this augmented 
his excitement, and on Friday evening last he was 
found in an apoplectic fit in his bedroom. The attack 
terminated fatally in a few hours. Mr Lovett, the 



182 . PHRENOLOGY. 

parish surgeon, who attended him, and afterwards 
opened the body, attributed the death to sanguineous 
apoplexy, produced by great mental emotion." — 
{C'Oleraine Chronicle, Dec. 27, 1845.) The Limerick 
Chronicle says, " A fine young girl, daughter of WilHapa 
Shirley, tenant of W. Cox, Esq., Ballynoe, Ballingarry, 
has become idiotic from terror of the burning of her 
father's house and furniture, by incendiaries on Mon- 
day night."— (July 1846.) 

All these cases prove that the mind and the brain 
are very intimately associated with each other. I shall 
now give a few well-authenticated and remarkable 
examples, demonstrating the effects on the manifesta- 
tions of the mind which are produced by pressure on 
the brain. They prove beyond all controversy that 
the brain is the organ through which the mind acts. 

In his lectures on the Practice of Medicine, as they 
are found in The London Medical and Surgical Journal 
for June 28th, 1834, Dr Stokes details a case reported 
by Berard, junior, in the Gazette Medicale, in which a 
tumour was removed from the inside of the skull, and 
the patient was immediately attacked, for the first time^ 
with loss of consciousness and convulsions of the 
trunk and extremities. The operator justly concluding 
that the symptoms were produced by the removal of 
the pressure from the brain to which it had gradually 
become accommodated during the growth of the tumour, 
at once made gentle pressure on the denuded surface, 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 183 

and he found that the convulsions immediately ceased, 
and the intelligence was restored. " Avellan says that 
a girl of fourteen had a depression of the right parietal 
bone from a blow, which gave rise to mental derange- 
ment, amounting almost to imbecility, for three months ; 
at the end of which time the depressed bone gradually 
resumed its level, and the girl completely recovered." — 
{Phren. Journal^ vol. xvii. p. 80.) Hildanus reports the 
case of a boy whose skull had been depressed by an 
accident. As there were no urgent symptoms, there 
was nothing done for the depressed bone. In the 
meantime the patient, who bad previously shown ex- 
cellent capacities, gradually lost his memory and judg- 
ment. He became completely stupid, and remained 
so for thirty years, when he died. — (Gall, vol. ii. p. 
118.) Professor Richerand, of France, attended an 
old woman, a portion of whose brain had been laid bare 
by caries. One day, while cleansing away the pus, he 
accidentally pressed downwards a little on the brain ; 
immediately the patient, who, an instant before, an- 
swered his inquiries very correctly, became silent in 
the middle of a sentence. As this pressure occasioned 
no pain, he repeated it three times, and always with 
the same result. Each time the pressure was removed 
the patient instantly recovered her faculties. — {Gall, 
vol. ii. p. 120.) Professor Chapman, of America, had a 
patient in whom the brain was exposed by the loss of 
a portion of bone. In this individual, all feeling of 



184 PHRENOLOGY. 

consciousness J and all the operations of the mind, 
could be suspended at pleasure, by pressing on the 
brain with the point of the finger ; and all the faculties 
returned to their wonted activity immediately after the 
pressure was removed. " M. Bonnessous relates the 
case of a man, who two years and eight months before 
he saw him had been attacked and wounded in the 
head by an assassin. He suffered much in his head, and 
had become almost idiotic. On examining the head, 
Bonnessous found, just above the left ear, a resisting 
tumour about the size of a bean. Pressure on this 
gave great pain, and aggravated the cerebral symptoms. 
Cutting into the tumour, the blade of a poinard-knife 
was extracted. A probe carried into the track whence 
the knife had been extracted, passed quite horizontally, 
so that no doubt could remain that this blade had 
been buried within the cerebral mass for two years and 
eight months. The patient went on well and recovered 
his mental energies."^ — {Medical Times and Gazette, 
Sept. 1861.) Sir Astley Cooper, of London, in his 
Lectures on Sitrgery, relates a most extraordinary case, 
and he very properly expresses his surprise that the 
case has not made a greater impression on the public 
mind than it appears to have done. A man who was 
on board a vessel in the Mediterranean, was entirely 
deprived of consciousness by a wound in the head, 
produced by a fall from the yard arm. He remained 
in this state, with complete and total suppression of 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 185 

consciousness, for the whole period of thirteen months ^ 
until Mr Cline, who was then one of the surgeons to St 
Thomas's Hospital, London, trephined him and removed 
a piece of bone which was driven in on the brain. In 
the course of a few days, he was as well as ever. The 
last thing he had any recollection of was the capture of 
his vessel in the Mediterranean thirteen months before. 
For this length of time he had been deprived of the 
use of all his mental powers ; but by the removal from 
his brain of a portion of bone with a saw, '' he was at 
once restored to all the functions of his mind." 

Were it necessary, I might multiply cases of this 
description ; but I think it would be quite useless to 
do so, as enough has been said already to satisfy any 
rational man that the brain is the organ through 
which the mind operates. Indeed, the one half of 
what I have produced would be sufficient, were it not 
for the prejudices which have been raised through 
metaphysical speculations. Let it be particularly ob- 
served that I speak of the brain as the organ through 
which the mind acts, rather than as the seat of the 
mind. Dr Gall has very properly made this distinction. 
The one point is capable of being proved to a demon- 
stration ; the other would lead to endless and useless 
speculation. 

Although the Scripture very satisfactorily and abu n- 
dantly testifies as to the existence of the mind, or soul, 
still I have no hesitation in saying we have no means 



186 PHRENOLOGY. 

of becoming acquainted with its peculiar and varied 
manifestations y on this side the grave, in any other 
way than by its action through corporeal organs, be- 
cause in this life it is never separated from its material 
tabernacle. To use the eloquent language of Mr Geo. 
Combe, " The soul sparkling in the eye of beauty trans- 
mits its sweet influence to a kindred spirit only 
through the filaments of an optic nerve; and- even 
the bursts of eloquence which flow from the lips of 
the impassioned orator, when mind appears to trans- 
fuse itself almost directly into mind, emanate from, 
and are transmitted to, corporeal beings, through a 
voluminous apparatus of organs. If we trace the 
mind's progress from the cradle to the grave, every 
appearance which it presents reminds us of this im- 
portant truth. In earliest life, the mental powers are 
feeble as the body ; but when manhood comes, they 
glow with energy, and expand with power ; till at last 
the chill of age makes the limbs totter, and the fan^cy's 
fires decay. Nay, not only the great stages of our in- 
fancy, vigour, and decline, but the experience of every 
hour, reminds us of our alliance with the dust. The 
lowering clouds and stormy sky depress the spirits 
and enerve the mind • after short and stated intervals 
of toil, our wearied faculties demand repose in sleep ; 
famine or disease is capable of levelling the proudest 
energies with the earth; and even the finest portion of 
our compound being, the mind itself, apparently be- 



IS THE BRAIN THE OEGAN OF THE MIND ? 1 87 

comes diseased, and, leaving nature's course, flies to 
self-destruction to escape from woe. These pheno- 
mena must be referred to the organs with which, in 
this life, the mind is connected ; but if the organs 
exert so great an effect over the mental manifestations 
no system of philosophy is entitled to consideration, 
which neglects their influence, and treats the thinking 
principle as a disembodied spirit." 

It has been stated in support of the metaphysical 
theory, that our eunscio^isiiess gives us no indication of 
the use of material organs during several of our mental 
operations, and that therefore we have no evidence of 
the existence of such organs. Consequently we may con- 
clude with Lord Jeffrey, ''that there is not the smallest 
reason for supposing that the mind ever operates 
through the agency of any material organs, except 
in its perception of material objects, or in the spon- 
taneous movements of the body which it inhabits.' 
This objection, however, has been extremely well met 
by Dr Spurzheim, and Mr Geo. Combe, who show that 
our consciousness has not been commissioned, and 
consequently need not be expected, to give us full 
information on such subjects. For example, I -^dll 
to move my arm ; the action is performed, I feel that 
such is the case ; but I am not by any means conscious 
of the various parts which are used, and of all the 
Hnks in the chain which are necessary for the per- 
formance of this simjDle action. Eecent experiments 



188 PHKENOLOGY. 

and observations in anatomy and physiology have 
proved, that so soon as the mind communicates its will 
to the brain, a certain influence is transmitted by a set 
of motor nervous fibres to the muscles of the arm ; — 
that the muscles, in obedience to the nervous influence 
act on the bones so as to put them in motion ; — and 
that the knowledge of this motion having been per- 
formed is conveyed upwards to the brain through 
another set of nervous fibres which are specially set 
apart for sensation. Here, then, we have a complex 
machinery brought into operation for the elevation of 
my arm ; and still my consciousness gives me no infor- 
mation whatever on the subject, save and except that 
the arm has been moved in obedience to my will. Con- 
sciousness makes us aware of the result, but it never 
has made, and never could make, us acquainted with 
the existence, number, and peculiar construction of the 
nerves through which the mind conveys its mandates 
and receives its information. There is not one of my 
readers could tell by his consciousness whether it re- 
quires one nerve, or a dozen, to do this duty ; nor yet 
whether one nerve is composed entirely of motor fibres, 
or of sensitive fibres, or of both. Such, then, being 
the state of matters with this, as well as with other 
parts of the nervous system, I ask. Is it rational to 
expect, or is it fair to call upon the Phrenologist to 
prove, that the brain must be an exception to the 
ordinary rules of nature 1 If our consciousness does 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 189 

not inform us as to the very existence and structure of 
one portion of our nervous system, why are we to 
demand of it to throw light upon every other ? We 
are perfectly aware from our own experience that our 
eyes are for seeing, our ears for hearing, and our nose 
for smelling, and also that our heads are the special 
seat of thought ; but still our consciousness has never 
given us the slightest information concerning the 
number, variety, nature, structure, shape, and position 
of the different organs of which the eye, the ear, and 
the nose are composed. It has not even told us of the 
very existence of an optic, an auditory, and an olfactory 
nerve. On what principle, then, are we to demand of 
it to inform us about the number, variety, nature, 
extent, and position of the organs of the brain ? For 
aught that consciousness could tell, the brain, spinal 
marrow, and all the nerves of the body might be made 
of green cheese. It is no part of the province of con- 
sciousness to throw light on these subjects. If our 
opponents would only exercise the least possible por- 
tion of common sense, they would see that information 
on these points, in place of being obtained from con- 
sciousness, must be gathered from the careful observa- 
tion of facts. This is the true — the Phrenological — 
method of philosophising. 

Notwithstanding all Mr Drew, and others, have 
written on the subject, I am strongly inchned to go 
the whole length of saying, that the Scriptures give us 



190 PHRENOLOGY. 

the only evidence on which we can perfectly and satis- 
factorily rely as to the existence, immateriality, and 
immortality of the soul. On this point my mind has 
never been fully convinced by the arguments which 
have been drawn by learned men and elaborate writers, 
from the light of nature alone. Fortunately, however, 
we are not left in doubt, or to grope in darkness, on 
such a momentous subject. The Scriptures abound 
with the most distinct, indubitable, and irresistible 
evidence on this vital question. They plainly and dis- 
tinctly tell us that we have a soul ; and that it is 
spiritual and immortal ; consequently, we can have no 
ground whatever for rational hesitation concerning the 
matter. What is left more or less dark when viewed 
from the point of nature alone, is placed beyond all 
doubt and difficulty in the light of the Inspired "Word. 
Man has a mind which is spiritual and immortal. 

But there are various points regarding the opera- 
tions of the mind or soul, on which the Scriptures are 
silent, and with which we have no means of becoming 
acquainted, unless we study the mind in its manifesta- 
tions through those corporeal organs with which, in 
this state of existence, it has been connected. And 
this assertion is not open, as many have supposed, to 
the charge of materialism. To say the mind acts 
through the brain is very different from saying that it 
is a mere quality or property of the brain, in the same 
way as contractility is a property of muscular fibre. 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 191 

The mind can no more be a mere quality of the organ 
through which it operates than the tenant of a house 
can be a quahty of the house in which he resides. If 
I denied the existence of spirit, and held with Dr 
Elliotson, Dr Engledue, and Sir William Laurence, 
that thought is an inherent property of the brain, in the 
very same way as contractility is a property of muscular 
fibre and secretion of a gland ; then, indeed, I would 
be fully chargeable with materialism in its very lowest 
form. I hold no such doctrine, however, but the very 
reverse. I believe in the Scripture which tells us that 
man may kill the body but cannot kill the soul. 
Whereas, if the idea of cerebration, as Dr Engledue 
has called it, were correct, the killing of the body 
would be the killing of everything. In place of main- 
taining that the brain itself thinks, I hold that the 
brain is just the instrument, or material organ, through 
which the mind acts in this life ; in short, that the 
mind, in the process of thought, uses the different 
organs of the brain in the very same way, and on the 
very same principle, as it uses the nerves of the eye, 
the ear, and the nose, in the act of seeing, hearing, and 
smelling. If any man imagines he can make me out 
a materialist from these principles, let him just try it. 
Our eyes are specially organised for the purpose of 
receiving the impression of external objects, and of 
conveying that impression to the mind through the 
instrumentality of the brain. They also serve to con- 



192 PHRENOLOGY. 

vey the mental impressions to external nature. They 
are a channel, as it were, both for taking in and giving 
out. " The glare, the stare, the sneer, the invitation, 
the denial, the look of love, the flash of rage, the 
sparkling of hope, the languishment of softness, the 
squint of suspicion, the fire of jealousy, and the lustre 
of pleasure, are all expressed through the eye." Still 
the eye does not originate these. We must trace them 
to a deeper source. If we destroy the connexion be- 
tween the eye and the brain, it matters not how per- 
fect the structure of the eye may remain, sight is 
directly extinguished, and the eye has lost its lustre 
and power of expression. This unquestionably proves 
that the eye alone does not see. It is merely the 
organ through which we see. It just receives the 
image of the object we look at, and conveys it to the 
brain, in order that the mind may take cognizance of 
it. Now, does this doctrine, which has been acknow- 
ledged for centuries by every person conversant with 
the structure and functions of the eye, lead to 
materialism, or is it ever suspected of doing so ? No. 
Why, then, are we to be branded with infamy when 
we apply the same mode of reasoning to the organs of 
the brain '? The eye alone cannot see, it is the mind 
which takes cognizance of the objects depicted on the 
retina. The brain alone cannot think, it is the mind 
which makes use of the impressions which are made 
upon the organs of the brain. The destruction of the 



IS THE BRAIN THE OKGAN OF THE MIND ? 193 

eye does not knock a corner out of the mind, and put 
an end to its power of vision ; but it takes away the 
only instrument through which it can manifest its 
capabihty of seeing the external world during this life. 
The destruction of the brain, so far as is compatible 
with the continuance of life, does not extinguish the 
mind, or reduce its capacity in any respect, but it puts 
an end to the only instrument through which its 
varied operations can be manifested on this side the 
grave. Hence, I conclude that I am no more a 
materialist than my opponents, if T study the mani- 
festations of mind in connexion with any or all of those 
material instruments composing the tabernacle from 
which, in this world, it is never separated. 

It must not be forgotten that it is no part of my in- 
tention, in this work, to 'prove the existence, immate- 
riality, and immortality of the soul. Phrenology 
undertakes no such duty, because it does not lie within 
its province. All that can possibly be required of it, 
is to show that it is perfectly consistent with the truth 
of all these other points. It is not called upon to 
prove them, as that must be done from another source, 
namely, from Scripture. Phrenology only requires to 
demonstrate that, as far as these points are concerned, 
Scripture and it are quite compatible. Besides, all my 
opponents, whose opinions I value, agree with me in 
believing, from Scripture, in the existence, immateri- 
ality, and immortality of the soul. On these great and 



194 PHRENOLOGY. 

fundamental doctrines we are thoroughly one ; and 
hence do not require to prove them to each other. 
Neither do I think it necessary to touch upon the 
distinctions which have sometimes been made between 
the soul, mind, and spirit. So far as my doctrines 
in Phrenology are concerned, it does not make the 
slightest difference what views are held on this point. 
Consequently, for the sake of simplicity and precision, 
as well as because it is in accordance with my own 
opinions, I shall use the words soul, mind, and spirit, 
as perfectly synonymous terms to represent the one, 
indivisible, thinking principle. 

Now, assupaing the mind to be immaterial, which I 
am fully persuaded it is, how can we conceive of its 
being diseased, as in cases of madness ? To say that 
it is subject to disease, in the common acceptation of 
the term, is plainly and directly equivalent to an as- 
sertion of its materiality. Hence, 1 unhesitatingly 
fling back upon my opponents the charge of material- 
ism, and make them responsible for all the conse- 
quences of such a doctrine. I do not exactly mean to 
say they are all materialists ; because I agree with the 
great President Edwards in thinking "it would be un- 
just, in many instances, to charge every author with 
believing and maintaining all the real consequences 
of his avowed doctrines." He may not be capable 
of seeing the result of his own sentiments. On these 
grounds, therefore, I will not say my opponents 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 195 

are actually materialists ; but I do say they hold opinions 
which, if carried to their legitimate extent, must inevit- 
ably end in materialism. I now call upon them at 
once to change their sentiments, or else I shall hold 
them fairly and fully responsible for every result which 
I can show to be the necessary and inevitable effect of 
their opinions. This I am fully entitled to ; and I 
heartily concede the same privilege to the other side. 

What is disease ? It is nothing more or less than 
a deranged state of the structure and functions of a 
material organ ; and, consequently, if the mind can 
become diseased, it must be material. But the ques- 
tion which was once put to me by a minister, in the 
presence of a public audience, will probably occur to 
some of my readers — namely, What are we to make of 
sin ? If so, I shall give the same reply I gave to him. 
That sin is a disease affecting both soul and body, I 
most readily admit, and am prepared to maintain ; but 
that it is a disease of the same kind, nature, or class, 
as insanity, epilepsy, tetanus, drunkenness, or delirium 
tremens, I most positively deny. It does not bear the 
most distant resemblance to them. It has nothing m 
common with disease, as we usually understand the 
term, except that it leads to death. Besides, we know 
that disease has come upon man as a consequence of, 
and punishment for, sin. How, then, could we imagine 
the cause and effect to be the same thing ? It is a 
common practice, when a person becomes deranged, to 



196 PHRENOLOGY. 

have recourse to leeches and cold lotions for the head ; 
and under this system of management the patient 
sometimes improves ; but I have never yet heard of 
the same line of treatment being recommended for the 
removal, or prevention, of sin. Moreover, it is univer- 
sally admitted that the person who is really insane is 
not responsible to either God or man for his actions. 
As Dr Thomson, in his Lectures on Jurisprudence, 
says, " No man who is of insane mind is an accountable 
being." Will any man, however, venture to make the 
same statement in regard to sin ? Will any person 
assert that the sinner is not an accountable being, 
either in this world or the next ? I rather think not. 

Until very lately, I had imagined that most men 
agreed with Lord Erskine in stating that "it is the 
reason of man which makes him accountable for his 
actions ; and the deprivation of reason acquits him of 
crime." I find, however, from the London Medical 
Times and Gazette, for 15th December 1860, that there 
is one notable exception to this rule. In sentencing a 
person who had committed arson, but who was proved 
to be a lunatic, and whose counsel did not plead lunacy 
for fear of confining him to an asylam for life, the 
presiding judge, Baron Bramwell, said, " That you are 
of unsound mind, I believe, but that is no reason why 
you should not be punished. ... I feel bound to sen- 
tence you to the same punishment as if you were sane." 
He then sentenced the unfortunate lunatic to penal 



IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 197 

servitude for life ! ! I am certain no person can think 
of this fact without feeling something worse than mere 
contempt for such a judge. His statement is an out- 
rage upon common sense, and a disgrace to the bench. 
Instead of supposing that the immaterial and im- 
mortal soul is capable of such a change as disease, we 
should at once come to the rational principle of be- 
lieving that the brain, having become diseased, is unfit 
for the healthy manifestations of the mind, and that 
the mind, thus acting through an unsound organ, will 
have the appearance of being diseased, and receive 
erroneous impressions from without, in the same way 
as a jaundiced eye will give us false impressions of the 
objects which surround us. The idea of the mind 
itself being actually diseased conveys such a low and 
grovelling view of spirit that I am surprised any 
person, who is not an openly avowed materialist, 
could for a moment entertain the supposition. Un- 
fortunately, however, the opinion is but too generally 
maintained. Even Dr Bostock, who is a learned 
Physiologist, but not a Phrenologist, asserts, that " in 
insanity the disease of the mind is frequently inde- 
pendent of, or antecedent to, that of the brain." — 
(^Physiology ^ 3d edition, p. 750.) How such an opinion 
could be reconciled with the spirituality of mind is 
entirely beyond my comprehension. To hold such an 
idea is specially inconsistent in a man who believes 
in the immateriality of mind. It directly involves 



198 PHRENOLOGY. 

materialism. If tlie mind can be diseased, it must be 
material and mortal. " A.s in diseases of the body,'^ 
says Dr West, '' so in affections of the mind in early 
life, the power of repair furnishes us with a constant 
ground for hopefulness. . . . The arrest of develop- 
ment, or the positive retrocession of the mental 
faculties in childhood, may be regarded almost invari- 
ably as of far less serious import than any m^anifest 
perversion of the moral powers. . . . Apart from those 
instances, almost exclusively congenital, in which ar- 
rested development of mind is associated with arrested 
development of body, where the feeble and misshapen 
frame forms a fit tenement for the feeble and un- 
formed spirit," &c.— (Dr West's Lectures in the Medical 
Times and Gazette^ February 11th, 1860.) It is here 
distinctly stated, not only that the mind may be 
affected with disease, but also that it possesses, in 
some cases, a power of repair ; that there may be an 
arrest of development in the mental faculties ; and 
that the spirit may be feeble and unformed ! Could 
any language be used which would more certainly end 
in materialism than this ? I rather think not. " But 
where the body does not suffer," observes Sir Benjamin 
Brodie, in his Psychological Inquiries, p. 8-11, "the 
mind often does. . . . Mental relaxation after severe 
mental exertion is not less agreeable than bodily re- 
pose after bodily labour." To say the least of it, such 
remarks are open to great suspicion, and plainly show 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND? 199 

that the celebrated author had not made himself 
acquainted with the true philosophy of mind. We 
cannot imagine the possibility of a spirit getting 
fatigued ; consequently, if the mind suffers from work 
and requires repose, it must be material. The Phren- 
ologist says the brain requires repose, the mind never. 
'' The morbid conditions," says Dr Clendinning, " ex- 
isting in this patient were partly and primarily moral, 
and partly and secondarily physical. To 'the mind 
diseased ' we can minister directly in no way. With 
respect to the moral portion of mental alleviation, we 
have therefore to wait on time and circumstances, with- 
out active interference with the spontaneous efforts 
of nature. The physical part of the complaint, how- 
ever, requires close attention, and sometimes calls for 
vigorous remedies." — [Medical Gazette, December 17th, 
1841.) From this extract, there can be no doubt Dr 
Clendinning believes the mind itself is subject to 
disease. After arguing in his Lectures on Jurisprudence 
in favour of the immateriality of mind, Dr Anthony 
Todd Thomson remarks, ^^We shall be led to admit 
that two species of insanity may exist, or at least differ 
in their origin ; one a malady purely of the mind, the 
other a malady originating in the material organs, the 
brain, and nervous system." — (Ryan^s Journal, vol. vii. 
p. 162.) Is it not surpassing strange to find a man of 
Dr Thomson's ability, at the very time he is advo- 
cating immateriality, laying down the principle that 



200 PHRENOLOGY. 

the mind itself can be diseased? Surely he might 
have seen that the mind, if it be subject to disease, 
must be in its own nature material and mortal. When 
a man, like Dr Bostock or Dr Thomson, sticks by the 
old, or metaphysical, theory, and refuses to adopt the 
new philosophy, he must of necessity get into diffi- 
culty, as he has no means whatever of explaining the 
phenomena of insanity unless he makes the mind 
diseased. For the sake of consistency, however, he 
should go the whole length to which his opinions in- 
evitably lead, and avow materialism. This would be 
the manly course. " Metaphysical studies," writes 
Forbes Winslow, "have fallen, during the course of 
the last century, into general disuse. . . . The object 
of this paper is to endeavour to draw the attention 
of the medical philosopher to the study of the human 
mind, in order that some useful application of the 
knowledge of its idiosyncrasies, its various diseases^ 
and the effects of its powers on the bodily frame, may 
be made to the purposes of his profession." — {Ryaii^s 
Journal^ vol. i. p. 430.) Disease of the mind itself is 
here distinctly recognised. 

" Look at that intellect," says Dr Benson, in his 
Clinical Lecture, "once so powerful, once able to 
number the stars and call them by their names— to 
weigh the planets and measure their distances — look 
at it now in ruins ! " No, Dr Benson, if by intellect 
you mean the mind, I will never look upon it in ruins. 



TS THE BRAIN THK ORGAN OF THE MIND 1 201 

This is a proposition to which I cannot assent, even 
though the maniac should roar, and the loud laugh of 
fatuity should thrill awfully in my ears. The brain 
may be in ruins, the mind cannot. If it were possible 
for the mind to come into this condition, the inevitable 
conclusion which every man must of necessity arrive 
at, is, that it dies with the body, and descends into 
the grave to lie in rottenness and corruption. 

The effects of cerebral excitement are well displayed 
in those who use intoxicating liquors. A small quan- 
tity will give a moderate stimulus, and render the 
person capable of considerable exertion in thinking 
or acting ; an increase of dose wdll increase the ex- 
citement, and the disposition to activity will become 
greater ; and a still larger quantity will overdo the 
powers of nature so far as to exhaust its energies, and 
cause the individual to fall into a dull, listless, and 
stupid condition. The man is thoroughly drunk. Now, 
whether is it the mind or the brain is affected here ? 
Would it not be worse than preposterous to suppose 
the mind could get drunk ? If any person should ob- 
ject to my illustration from the effects of drink, because 
it is an artificial stimulus, I will take my stand upon 
the effects of a supply of blood, w^hich is the natural 
stimulus, to the brain. In moderate portions, it com- 
municates health and vigour to the brain ; but in too 
large quantities it causes stupor and death. Now, 
where is the man who could exercise his mind, in a 



202 PHKENOLOGY. 

fit of apoplexy, when the brain is gorged with blood, 
or in a fit of fainting, when it is deprived of blood ? 
Is it the mind or the brain is affected here ? Can the 
mind become apoplectic or faint ? 

If the questions I am discussing involved nothing 
but theory, I would not think them worth dwelling on ; 
but if practice is to be built upon principles, they are 
matters of weighty aud momentous importance. If 
we adopt correct notions regarding the connexion be- 
tween the mind and the brain, we will be fully alive 
to the necessity of attending to the condition of the 
brain during what is called mental exertion ; whereas 
if our ideas on the matter are erroneous, our practice 
must be equally far astray. Were the mind alone 
engaged in the operation of thought, no injury could 
possibly accrue from overwork, because it is a spirit, and 
consequently could not be fatigued or injured by any 
amount of exertion. The case, ho we ver, is far otherwise. 
Let Lord Jeffrey and his disciples say what they like, 
I feel certain the brain is engaged in every thought 
which occupies the mind ; and consequently that our ma- 
terial organisation is sure to suffer by too much study. 

" Excess of mental labour," says a newspaper editor, 
when mentioning Dr Southey's death, " in every de- 
partment of literature — poetry, history, biography, 
criticism, and philosophy, continued from year to year, 
without cessation — bowed his strong spirit at last, and 
obscured the genius which had so long cast a glory 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ] 203 

upon the literature of the age. For the last three 
years, he had been in a state of mental darkness, and 
a twelvemonth ago he was not able to recognise those 
who had been his companions from youth. Scarcely 
could his wife console herself with the poor hope that 
he recognised even her." Such a case speaks volumes, 
and should be a solemn warning to those who are in 
the constant habit of indulging in too close study. 
But, above all, what are we to think of it, when we 
find that this man's powers of mind, as they are com- 
monly called, at one time so gigantic, were, in his latter 
days, reduced to such a degree that he appeared to have 
no mind at all ? In fact, that, in this respect, he was 
reduced beneath the level of the horse and the dog, who 
know their master and friend. Are we to apply the 
metaphysical, or the phrenological theory to the explana- 
tion of this case ? Which of them will enable us to steer 
clear of materialism ? Did the mind, that noble attri- 
bute of man, dwindle away almost to nothing, as here 
, represented, or was it the brain that became diseased 
and debilitated from overwork ? Surely the man who 
can believe the mind capable of such a change must 
have a low and grovelling view of spirit. Away with 
such a thought, as it is fraught with awful conse- 
quences, and must inevitably lead to the supposition 
that the soul of man dies with his body, and lies dor- 
mant in the grave. " If the mind," says Dr Brigham 
of America, " could be deranged, independently of 



204 PHRENOLOGY. 

bodily disease, such a possibility would tend to destroy 
the hope of its immortality which we gain from reason ;■ 
for that which is capable of disease and decay may die." 
If Dr Southey's mind could dwindle down after such a 
manner, the next and most natural stage would be its 
death. It is just as capable of the one change as the 
other. I verily believe, however, with the Phrenolo- 
gists, that his mind was as perfect as at any other 
period of his life ; and that the only defect was in the 
brain, which had become so far changed, from over- 
work, as to be altogether inadequate for the proper 
manifestations of its noble occupant. Should any of 
my metaphysical opponents happen to have an aged 
father who has returned to a stage of childhood, and 
whose mind appears to be as weak and exhausted as 
the tottering limbs which carry him to the very verge 
of the grave,— whose memory has become so trea- 
cherous that it cannot be depended on to recall the 
occurrences of the previous hour, — whose powers of 
thought and of reason are now almost entirely extin- 
guished, — and whose conversation is nothing more 
than a senseless prattle, — I ask them what comfort 
they can take from supposing that this state of mat- 
ters results from the condition of the mind and not of 
the brain ? How can they possibly rid themselves of 
the idea, that, if the Phrenologist be astray in his 
views, the mind and the body fall together, and sink 
down into everlastinor oblivion ? 



IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 205 

We may form some idea of the evils resulting from 
too close, severe, and iong-protr acted study, or sudden 
over-excitement, from the following cases. They show 
very plainly that mental action is accompanied with an 
increased determination of blood to the brain. In his 
Lectures on Surgery, Sir Astley Cooper says, '^ A boy 
^vas brought to me from the north of England who had 
lost a portion of his skull just above the eyebrow. . . . 
On examining the brain, I distinctly perceived the 
pulsation was regular and slow ; but at this time he 
was agitated by some means or other ; directly the 
blood was sent with increased force to the brain, and 
the pulsation became more violent." A still more ex- 
traordinary case than Sir Astley Cooper's occurred in 
the practice of Dr Pierquin of Montpelier. " A female, 
aged twenty-six, lost a large portion of her scalp, skull- 
bone, and dura mater. A corresponding portion of her 
brain was consequently bare, and subject to inspection. 
When she was in a dreamless sleep, her brain was mo- 
tionless, and lay within the cranium. When her sleep 
was imperfect and she was agitated by dreams, her brain 
moved and protruded without the cranium, forming 
cerebral hernia. In vivid dreams, reported as such by 
herself, the protrusion was considerable ; and when she 
was perfectly awake, especially if engaged in active 
thought or sprightly conversation, it was still greater." 
— {Dr Andrew Combe.) We are informed by M. Broussais 
that Captain Thavernier " received in the middle of 



206 PHRENOLOGY. 

the Palais Royal, in May 1815, ninety days before his 
death, a letter containing bad news. Whilst perusing 
it, he remained motionless as if thunderstruck, and 
the left side of his face became paralysed, and drawn 
to the opposite side. He was taken to Val de Gr^ce, 
and attended to. . . . After using various remedies for 
more than two months, he began to improve, and be- 
came so much better as to be able to stand up, and to 
speak, although with difficulty. In this state of im- 
provement M. Thavernier received another letter, said 
to be from his wife ; he read it, and instantly there 
occurred loss of speech, general immobility, abolition 
of sense, and complete apoplexy. He died in three 
days after this attack, and, on examining the head, 
there was found engorgement of blood in the sinuses, 
&c. of the brain." — {Dr Brigkam) " It is well known," 
says Professor Caldwell of America, " that, while in- 
tensely engaged in a memorable debate, last winter in 
Washington, a distinguished senator became so giddy, 
by the inordinate rushing of blood into the brain, that 
he was obliged to sit down ; and the Senate adjourned 
to give him. time to recover. And, more recently, a 
new member of the House of Representatives fell while 
speaking, and suddenly expired from the same cause. 
A member of the law class of Transylvania, moreover, 
experienced, a few weeks ago, a convulsive affection 
from a congestion of blood in the head, induced by 
excessive excitement of the brain in the ardour of 



IS THE BRAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 207 

debate." Pinel mentions the case of a young man, 
"distinguished for his talents and his profound know- 
ledge of chemistry, who was occupied with a dis- 
covery which he hoped would lead him to fortune 
and distinction. To effect it the sooner, he resolved 
to shut himself up in his laboratory for several suc- 
cessive days ; and, the better to banish sleep and to 
raise himself to the level of his labours, he prepared a 
variety of stimulants. A singing girl shared his re- 
treat, he drank spirits, smelled frequently odoriferous 
substances, and sprinkled the room with Eau de 
Cologne. At the end of eight days, the most furious 
delirium took place, followed by a regular attack of 
mania." — (Br A. Combe,) Mr Philip Dixon Hardy, in 
the Appendix to his Philosophy of Christianity.^ details 
the case of a German philosopher, Mr Herman Goltz, 
who, after spending a number of years in the closest 
application to study for the purpose of discovering the 
functions of the brain, hanged himself in his dissecting 
room. " For more than twenty years,'^ says Goltz, " I 
have pursued a phantom, an ignis fatuus^ that has de- 
coyed me into misery and ruin. My vision has become 
so dim that I cannot longer distinguish the objects of 
my research — my hand is too tremulous to hold the 
scalpel. Confined in this charnel-house, I have been 
estranged from nature's fair and inviting prospects — I 
have cultivated no man's friendship, nor sought for the 
affection of women. I have, indeed, read of the charms 



208 PHEEisroLorxY. 

of society, the exhilarations of wine, the delights of a 
domestic partner, and the blessedness of children ; but 
I have been a solitary student ; water has been my 
only beverage ; no female can approach me with attach- 
ment, nor can child curse me for its existence. To live 
longer is useless, — the past has been misemployed, the 
present is wearisome, and I will anticipate the future.'^ 

The cases I have quoted are very important, and 
they should impress us strongly with the necessity 
there is of guarding against what is called sudden and 
overpowering mental excitement, or too great and long 
continued mental exertion. If the mind alone were 
concerned, no injury could arise, because of its spir- 
itual nature ; but these examples plainly prove that 
the brain is directly acted upon, and is nearly certain 
to suflPer to a dangerous extent by the so-called mental 
shocks and long-continued mental exercise. " Men of 
exalted intellect," says Pinel, " perish by their brains : 
and such is the noble end of those whose genius pro- 
cures for them that immortality which so many ar- 
dently desire." — {Dr A. Combe.) ^'In the production 
of insanity," says Esquirol, ^Hhe brain is over-excited 
and goes beyond its physiological powers." — (Quetelet 
on Man.) 

That the brain, in some instances, retains a consider- 
able amount of power under general bodily failure, or 
to a good old age, is proved by the example of Sophocles, 
Voltaire, Burke, Newton, Lyndhurst, Brougham, Hall, 



IS THE BEAIN THE ORGAN OF THE MIND ? 209 

Burnet, and many others ; but we are not, by any 
means, warranted from this in supposing that the 
brain retains its full and 'perfect vigour to the last 
moment of our existence in any case. In regard to 
those who have just passed from this sublunary scene, 
it is often remarked they retained all their mental 
faculties in full force and power to the very last. I 
imagine, however, this is a mistake ; and I am certain 
the parties who make the observation hardly believe it 
themselves. If they had an estate of ten thousand a 
year depending upon the solution of an intricate law 
point, which involved the construction of several acts 
of Parliament, they would not leave it to be determined 
by the opinion, at the last moment, of a dying lawyer, 
even though he was the greatest man that ever lived, 
unless, indeed, he had previously studied the subject, 
and knew it as well as the English alphabet. In ar- 
gument, people often talk flippantly about what they 
hardly beheve ; but when it comes to be tried by a 
money value, they generally arrive at common sense. 
** We have heard a great deal," says Dr James Johnson, 
in his Economy of Healthy " of those brilliant scintilla- 
tions of intellect that sometimes cast a dazzling lustre 
round the dying bed. Eloquent orations on this topic 
have been addressed to audiences more disposed to 
swallow the marvellous than investigate the probable 1 
The whole is, in my opinion, an innocent romance, cal- 
culated to gratify the f eeUngs — perhaps flatter the pride 



210 PHRENOLOGY. 

— of the living by throwing a halo around the couch of 
the dead. . . . Few have had the melancholy task of 
witnessing more deathbed scenes than myself, whether 
amid the storms and havoc of war, or in the quiet walks 
of peace. But no such corruscations of the mind have 
I ever beheld when the immortal spark was deserting 
its uninhabitable tenement.'^ In those diseases which 
are not necessarily connected with alterations in the 
state of the brain, all the mental operations may be 
manifested to the last ; but most certainly not in the 
same amount of continuous vigour as in health. Ee- 
garding Hogarth, Allan Cunningham says, " Towards 
the last^ his understanding continued clear, he had 
full possession of his mental faculties, but wanted the 
vigour to exert them.^' A man, at the point of death, 
is no more capable of reasoning, for a length of time, 
on a deep and intricate subject, provided it is entirely 
new to him, than he would be of fighting a battle. He 
might wield his sword in the usual manner, but he 
certainly could not bring it down on the head of his 
adversary with the same amount of force, nor yet re- 
peat the stroke for the same length of time, as in 
health. So is it with the brain. It may allow a man 
to reason in the usual way, on a point on which he is 
well trained ; its vivacity might even become exalted for 
the time being by the excitement of -pddn or the realities 
of approaching death ; but its strength and vigour, in 
place of holding out as in health, would certainly fail. 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 211 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 

Having established that the brain is the organ 
through which the mind operates, the next question 
which presents itself for our consideration is this : — 
Does the mind, in every act, employ the whole brain 
as a single organ ; or is the brain composed of an 
assemblage of parts possessing entirely distinct func- 
tions, but connected together in such a way that the 
mind can employ them either singly or conjointly ? 

" When the brain is fully developed," says Dr Car- 
penter, " it offers innumerable diversities of form and 
size among various individuals ; and there are as many 
diversities of character. It may be doubted if two 
individuals were ever exactly alike in this respect. 
. . . That the different portions of the cerebrum have 
different functions in the complex operations of thought, 
must, I think, be admitted to be by no means an im- 
probable speculation ;'' but, notwithstanding all this,Dr 
Carpenter is not a Phrenologist. — (Lectures in Medical 
Gazette, Sept. 1841.) "According to the researches of some 
celebrated French pathologists," observes Dr Stokes, 
"there are a number of facts to show that there is a re- 
markable difference between the symptoms of arachnitis 
of the convexity and of the base of the brain. This con- 
clusion, which after a most careful series of investiga- 
tions was adopted by them, is borne out by the results 



212 PHRENOLOGY* 

of my experience, and appears to me to be established 
on the basis of truth. They have discovered that 
arachnitis of the convexity of the brain is a disease 
characterised by prominent and violent symptoms, 
early and marked delirium, intense pain, watchfulness, 
and irritability. But in arachnitis of the base of the 
brain, the symptoms are of a more latent and insidious 
character, there is some pain, and the coma is profound, 
but there is often no delirium. What an important 
fact for the supporters of Phrenology is this ! Here 
we find the remarkable fact, that inflammation of the 
arachnoid investing the base of the brain, to which 
Phrenologists attach comparatively no importance, is 
commonly unattended with any lesion of the intel- 
lectual powers, while the same inflammation on the 
convexity is almost constantly accompanied by symp- 
toms of distinct mental alienation." — {By art's Journal, 
vol. V. p. 646.) These facts distinctly prove that the 
surface of the convexity and the surface of the base of 
the brain do not perform the same functions, and con- 
sequently that the brain is a compound organ. If it 
were a single organ, inflammation of the investing 
membrane and surface at one part would exhibit the 
very same mental aberrations as at every other part. 
All would then be alike. Seeing that disease on the 
top is accompanied with difl'erent symptoms from that 
on the base, the brain cannot possibly be a unit. It 
must be compound. 



IS THE BUAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 213 

If the brain were a single organ, there would be no 
necessity for the extreme care which is at present ex- 
ercised by the physiological experimenters in isolating 
the different parts upon which their observations are 
made. The experiments of Haller, Zinn, and Lorrj^ 
would be quite as trustworthy as those of Flourens, 
Magendie, and Bernard. The same results would 
follow them all, and a dozen would be as good as a 
million. So far, however, is this from being the case, 
that there are scarcely two observers agreed as to the 
effects produced by their operations; and this diversity 
arises from the great difficulty — the absolute impossi- 
bility — of isolating the different portions of the brain. 
Hence it is evident the organ is compound. 

In relation to the supposed unity of the cerebrum 
and cerebellum. Portal asks, "Are not both of them 
provided with cortical substance and medullary sub- 
stance ? Are they not traversed and nourished by the 
same vessels'?" — {Gall.) "The cerebral parts," says 
Eudolphi, " are not sufficiently dissimilar to allow them 
to be considered as distinct organs. They are all formed 
of the same substance ; and all, even those situated in 
the interior of the brain, are intimately united.^' — 
{Gall.) Berard and De Montegre inquire, ^^Is it, how- 
ever, well ascertained that the brain is really composed 
of independent parts ? ... If the brain be attentively 
studied, and if we apply to it the simple and luminous 
ideas for which we are indebted to our great pbysiolo- 



214 phrenology; 

gists, we shall soon be convinced that these parts are 
not distinct and separate organs. . . . The brain is 
characterised everywhere by unity ; no marked divi- 
sion can be observed ; this anatomical disposition 
X^roves the impossibility of placing in it distinct or- 
gans." — {GalL) The absurdity and perfect childishness 
of the above remarks from learned professors can be 
demonstrated by reference to one single anatomical 
and physiological fact. The whole stress of Portal's, 
Eudolphi's, Berard^s, and De Montegre's argument lies 
in the apparent similarity of structure of the different 
parts of the brain. The parts, say they, are so like in 
their anatomical arrangements that they cannot be 
separate organs. Now let us see how this line of 
argument will apply in the case of the voluntary 
nerves. Take, for example, one of the nerves of the 
arm. It is a small, white-looking cord, and the most 
powerful microscope in the world could not reveal the 
slightest difference in the appearance and construction 
of its fibres. It is alike in all its parts. Consequently, 
if the arguments adduced above regarding the brain 
have the least weight, the nerve of the arm must of 
necessity be a single organ, performing a single func- 
tion. So far, however, is this from being the case, 
that pathological observations, and the physiological 
experiments of Sir Charles Bell, Magendie, Marshall 
Hall, Bernard, and others, have demonstrated to the 
entire satisfaction of the medical world, that this 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 21-5 

simple-looking nerve is a double organ, performing a 
double function : in short, that its fibres, which to 
the eye appear identical, which are contained in the 
same sheath, and which cannot be separated by the 
finest process of dissection, are in reality so different 
in their nature, that one half of them is for sensation 
and the other half for motion. They are as distinct 
in their functions as two parts can well be. It is owing 
to this arrangement that we can understand paralysis 
of the arm. If all the fibres of the nerve are aff'ected, 
sensation and motion are both lost ; but if the fibres 
for sensation only are diseased, the power of feeling 
will be lost whilst the power of motion remains, and 
vice versa. Medical men have frequent opportunities 
of seeing cases to illustrate all these forms of paralysis. 
In his Lectures on the Nervous System, Sir Charles 
Bell gives an interesting case where the loss of sensa- 
tion in the arm was compensated for by the use of the 
eye. A woman, who was a mother, lost the power of 
sensation whilst she retained the power of motion in 
the arm. So long as she looked to what she was doing, 
she could carry her child, but if she took away her eye, 
the child would immediately drop from her grasp, as 
the loss of sensation in the arm prevented her from 
feeling what she was about. I have read of a similar 
example in the case of a female waiter, who, so long as 
she kept her eye to the hand, could carry her tray with 
perfect accuracy, but the moment her eye was drawn 



216 PHRENOLOGY. 

off, the tray dropped to the ground, and the contents 
were destroyed. — {Dr Yelloley,) 

It is a great mistake to imagine that the apparent 
anatomical structure of the brain should be an infal- 
lible guide to its physiological action. Such a rule 
would hardly hold good in regard to any organ in the 
body. Why then should Portal, Eudolphi, Berard, 
and De Montegre expect us to prove from its anatomi- 
cal appearance alone, that the brain is composed of 
various parts performing distinct functions 1 Such an 
expectation is quite unreasonable. As Dr Spurzheim 
has well said, the structure of a part must be in accord- 
ance with its function ; but it does not follow from this 
that it invariably reveals its function. Who, he asks, 
could tell, from dissection, that the stomach secretes 
gastric juice, the liver bile, and the kidneys urine ? 
No one. Who could tell by dissection that one half of 
a voluntary nerve was for sensation and the other half 
for motion ? No one. And yet Prochaska (Carpenter's 
Lectures in the Medical Gazette^ June 1841, p. 462,) and 
Spurzheim, {Anatomy of Brain^ Boston edit., p. 44,) 
from the observation of facts alone, taught the dis- 
tinction between the sensitive and motor fibres long 
before ever Sir Charles Bell thought of experimenting 
on their roots. Who could tell by their appearance 
that the optic, the auditory, the olfactory, and the 
gustatory nerves differed so far in their functions, that 
they served respectively for seeing, hearing, smelling, 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN] 217 

and tasting 1 No one. Why then should any man be 
so unreasonable as to expect the complex organs of the 
brain to have their functions all unravelled by the use 
of the scalpel ? 

" If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature," 
says the author of Sandford and Merton, "it is an 
American patriot signing resolutions of independence 
with the one hand^ and with the other brandishing a 
whip over his affrighted slaves." So say I with all 
my heart, and every man who wishes to acknowledge 
truth must coincide with the sentiment expressed. 
But still the position of the American is not one whit 
more ridiculous than that of the Physiologist who 
opposes the Phrenologist regarding the compound 
nature of the brain ; because his opposition on this 
point is at direct variance with his own acknowledged 
principles respecting the functions of those portions 
of the brain into which the nerves of the senses are 
inserted. The Anatomists and Physiologists have 
taken extreme pains in tracing, to different parts of 
the brain, the origin or termination, whichever they 
may choose to call it, of those nerves which serve for 
seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling. Now, as these 
nerves all terminate in different parts of the brain, and 
as each of them performs a function entirely different 
from its neighbour, and as their duties are never found 
to be interchangeable, it surely must be as plain as 
the light of heaven, that the spot with which "any 



218 PHRENOLOGY. 

one of them is connected must have a function pecu- 
liar to itself, and consequently that the brain into 
which they are all inserted must be a compound organ. 
This is undeniable. If one spot in the brain be spe- 
cially connected with seeing, another with hearing, and 
a third with smelling, and the part which is for seeing 
cannot answer for smelling, nor the part which is for 
smelling take the place of that which is for seeing, it 
surely requires no further proof to establish, even on 
the avowed principles of my opponents, that the brain 
must be composed of a number of distinct organs per- 
forming distinct and separate functions. 

On the supposition of the brain being a single organ, 
and consequently that every part of it is engaged in 
each mental manifestation, how would it be possible 
to account for monomania, or in other words, for a 
case of derangement in reference to a single subject, 
whilst the person is perfectly sane in regard to every 
other point? In defending Hatfield, Lord Erskine 
mentioned an interesting case of this description in 
which he was concerned. His lordship had spent 
a considerable time in a fruitless effort to convince 
the judge and jury of the insanity of a gentleman 
who maintained his perfect sanity, and brought an 
action against his brother for confining him in a lunatic 
asylum. He answered all Lord Erskine's questions, on 
different subjects, with such perfect accuracy, that all 
who were present in court considered he was the sub- 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 219 

ject of wanton cruelty and oppression, until at last his 
lordship found out the weak point, and asked if he 
was Jesus Christ. He immediately replied, "I am the 
Christ/' This of course settled the question ; he was 
a monomaniac. Whatever difficulty monomania may 
present to the Metaphysician, to the Phrenologist it 
has none. It can be explained most satisfactorily on 
the supposition that the disease is exclusively in the 
brain, and that the brain, in place of being a single 
organ, is composed of a number of organs, and that 
each of these organs performs a different function. 
One organ is the seat of disease, whilst all the rest are 
in their normal or healthy condition. When the mind 
acts through the sound organs, it manifests healthy 
functions ; but when it operates through the diseased 
organ, there is an aberration of thought upon the point 
to which that organ has reference, on the very same 
principle as everything looks yellow when viewed 
through a jaundiced eye. When the eye is jaundiced, 
there is an imperfection in vision ; but still the mind 
itself is not touched ; nor is it in any way incapacitated 
for receiving correct impressions through the ear, the 
nose, and the palate, which are healthy. On these 
principles monomania is simple and intelhgible. If 
the brain were single, and not compound, there could 
not possibly be such a thing as derangement on one 
subject, unless the disease was in the mind itself, and 
then we would be completely shut up to materialism. 



220 PHEENOLOGY. 

" Who can affirm/' says Professor Kudolphi, " that 
the mind has need of different cerebral parts ? Per- 
haps a larger brain, being a more powerful apparatus, 
is sufficient for it." — (Gall.) I can not only affirm this, 
Professor Eudolphi, but I can also affirm, that you do 
not believe in your own statement, unless when you 
are making an effi)rt to overthrow Phrenology. Let us 
take the example of the senses. Do you, or does any 
man, believe, that the mind has no need of a compound 
brain as far as they are concerned 1 Do you, or does 
any man, believe, that an increase in the absolute size 
of the brain, because of its thus becoming a " more 
powerful apparatus," would enable the mind to hear 
through the points of the fingers, to see through the 
nose, to smell through the eyes, and to taste through 
the ears] Do you, or does any man, believe, that a 
whale, in whom the brain is absolutely larger than in 
man, would have become one of our greatest philoso- 
phers if the mind of Newton had been located in its 
brain ? I am sure you are not such a thorough 
simpleton as to believe any of these things ; and if so, 
I would like to know on what grounds you could 
imagine, that a single and perfectly homogeneous brain 
could manifest such opposite and different things as 
honesty and theft, cruelty and benevolence, reasoning 
power and idiocy, sanity on one point and insanity on 
another ; in short, that the very same spot would suit 
for the affections, the passions, the moral feelings, the 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 221 

observing and the reasoning faculties. No man who is 
two degrees above idiocy could really believe such a 
thing, if he would only allow himself to reflect fairly 
on the matter. 

If the mind be simple and the brain compound, the 
organs of the brain then become the windows through 
which the mind can survey the external world, as well 
as receive the impressions from without. An old author 
has well observed regarding the mind and the five 
senses, that, " whilst it remains in the brain, it can, 
as it were, look out at a few apertures ; that is, receive 
the notices of many things by those nerves and organs 
which are the instruments of sensation ; but if any of 
those avenues to it be stopped, that branch of its 
knowledge is for a time cut off." — {The Religion of 
Nature Delineated^ Glasgow, 1746.) The same mode 
of reasoning may be applied and extended to every 
organ of the brain through which the mind acts. A 
single mind acting through a compound brain might 
be fairly compared to a man sitting in the middle of 
a room, and looking out through a window composed 
of a number of panes of glass. If all the panes are 
transparent, the person in the room will see the objects 
outside in a continuous and uninterrupted form ; but 
if some of the panes are darkened, the scene outside 
will appear to the individual in the room to be inter- 
rupted in a corresponding degree. Nevertheless, if 
the entire window were built up, it would not in the 



222 PHRENOLOGY. 

slightest degree affect the existence and capacity of the 
man in the room. It would only just deprive him of 
the avenues of communication which connected him 
with the external scene. So is it with the mind and 
the brain. The mind is simple, the brain is compound ; 
and every organ of the brain which becomes diseased 
prevents the healthy manifestation of the mind through 
that particular portion ; but yet if the entire brain 
were diseased, it could not affect the mind in any 
other way than by stopping up the channels through 
which it was accustomed to give out its mandates 
and take in its information. The disease of the brain 
will neither divide, dissolve, nor annihilate the mind. 
As the old writer I have already quoted from says, " If 
the soul is immaterial, it is indiscerptible, and therefore 
incapable of being dissolved or demolished, as bodies are. 
Such a being can only perish by annihilation, that is, it 
will continue to subsist and live, if some other being, able 
to do this, doth not by a particular act annihilate it." 

Perhaps some of my readers may be disposed to 
question the existence of a case of monomania, 
although it is recognised by the whole medical pro- 
fession. If they do so, however, it will serve no 
purpose, as it will not clear them of the difficulty of 
their position, because examples of partial insanity 
are innumerable, whilst the history of the world, per- 
haps, could not produce one instance of complete in- 
sanity. When in Edinburgh in the year 1850, I asked 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN '? 223 

Mr George Combe if, in his extensive experience, and 
in his travels over different parts of the world, he had 
ever met with a case of complete insanity, that is to 
say, derangement of every faculty without any excep- 
tion. He said the thought had not previously struck 
him ; but in turning it over in his mind at the moment 
he could not remember a single example. He had seen 
one case in America which was more general than any 
other he knew of, but still it was not universal. I 
believe the nearest approach we have to complete in- 
sanity will be found in an aggravated case of delirium 
tremens. Even here, however, it is not complete. No 
matter how many other points the patient may be 
astray on, he will not mistake the glass of whisky, if 
it be brought within his reach. He also recognises 
his relatives and friends. The maddest man I ever 
saw, or read of, had still some points on which he was 
sane ; and a single sound corner of his mind, if the 
disease be in the mind, will answer the purpose of my 
argument as well as if the half of it were sound. The 
slightest portion of the mind being sound, whilst the 
remainder is diseased, makes it divisible, and conse- 
quently material. 

Pinel relates the case of a man who had an irresist- 
ible propensity to kill his wife, whom he dearly loved, 
at the very time he was warning her to fly out of his 
reach. This was an example of partial insanity. And 
Sir Geo. Mackenzie mentions an instance where a 



224 PHRENOLOGY. 

man seemed discreet, and could converse most per- 
tinently on every subject, till they spoke of the moon. 
On hearing the moon named, however, he fell into a 
state of great excitement, as he believed himself to be 
secretary to the moon. " A madman," says Gall, " so 
imposed on a magistrate who was visiting the hospital 
at Bic^tre, and succeeded so well in persuading him 
that he was a victim of the cupidity and cruelty of his 
relatives, that the magistrate had serious thoughts of 
examining his complaints, and of setting the injured 
man at liberty. But, just as he was bidding the in- 
jured man farewell, promising to return shortly with 
good tidings, ' Your excellency,' said he, ' will always 
be welcome, except on Saturday ; for, on that day, the 
Holy Virgin makes me a visit.'" 

Some years since, an intelligent man came a distance 
of ten or twelve miles to consult me about himself. 
He explained to me all his symptoms most minutely, 
and said he could not possibly restrain his disposition to 
self-destruction. He was as calm and collected as any 
man could be, and no person would have known there 
was anything wrong with him, if he had not mentioned 
the matter himself. I explained to him the nature of 
bis ailment, and strongly urged the propriety of an 
asylum. He at once agreed to the proposal ; went to 
the bank, and lifted some money to pay the expenses 
of a public institution ; and made all his arrangements 
to go. He was quite able to do all himself ; but still 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 225 

I told his friends it was not safe to leave him alone 
for an instant. When all the arrangements were com- 
pleted, and the car was at the door to convey him to 
the steamer, he made an excuse of going to the stable, 
and then took the opportunity of hanging himself. 

On another occasion, I got a message from a distant 
locality to visit a gentleman who required constant 
watching to prevent him from drowning himself. 
When I arrived, he was just going to dinner, and 
asked me to join him. We had a great deal of con- 
versation on different subjects, as well as about him- 
self. He occupied a good position in society, had 
received a good education, and was highly intelligent. 
He said his disposition to self-destruction was so great 
that he felt quite unable to restrain it. He described 
his condition most accurately, and said he was as well 
aware of his insanity as I was. He made special re- 
ference to the important fact, that he felt the two 
processes, of sanity and insanity, going on in his mind 
at the same time, as if he had a double mind. In fact, 
he had a double consciousness. His case was heredi- 
tary for three or four generations. I advised this 
gentleman to be placed under the care of a physician 
who had charge of a lunatic asylum, and I know no- 
thing of his history since. 

Again, I was consulted by a gentleman, who, with 
some of his friends, came from a distance to have my 
advice. He was a nice, sensible man in ordinary con- 



226 PHRENOLOGY. 

versation, and described his case most minutely. He 
was sane and insane at the same time, and was per- 
fectly conscious of his own condition. He said he 
struggled all he could, as he was a religious man and 
knew the evil of it, but he could not resist the tempta- 
tion to self-destruction. He had attempted it, but was 
saved, the day before I saw him. I explained to him 
and his friends the nature of his disease, and warned 
them of the danger of trusting him in his own house. 
I advised his immediate removal to a private asylum, 
and he heartily acquiesced in the arrangements. He 
was taken to the asylum. When he had been there 
for a few weeks, I received a letter from one of his 
friends, to say he was so much better that he was 
going to be removed from the institution, and that his 
relations were reflecting on me for having sent him 
away, as they considered it quite unnecessary. I re- 
plied that I did not mind the reflections, as I knew 
I had done what was my imperative duty ; and that I 
now warned his relatives that if they took him from 
the asylum they would undergo a grave responsibility, 
as he was nearly certain to commit suicide, and it 
would be impossible to watch him. They removed 
him, notwithstanding all I said, and in a short time 
after I got a letter telling me he had hanged himself. 

Now, in these three cases, as well as in the one I 
have just quoted from Pinel, there was a perfect con- 
sciousness of sanity and insanity at the same time. 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 227 

In Pinel's case, the man was determined to kill his 
wife at the very instant that he was anxious not to 
kill her ; and in my own cases, there was an irresistible 
feeling for self-destruction, accompanied by a great wish 
to avoid it. The question, then, comes, Were these 
contrary, but simultaneous, feelings, in the mind or 
in the brain ? The organ in which they existed could 
not be single ; it must be compound. The Phrenolo- 
gist escapes from all difficulty by connecting them with 
a compound brain ; but the Metaphysician, in placing 
them in the mind, must adopt the materialistic theory, 
as they prove, if in the mind, that the mind is com- 
pound, and divisible, and consequently material. A 
single mind could not possibly possess two such oppo- 
site feelings at the same time as existed in these 
instances. Neither is it credible, as alleged by some 
Metaphysicians, that the whole mind could be con- 
stantly jumping out of the one state into the other 
and back again. Such an idea is just about as sensible 
as the old controversy about the number of devils that 
could dance on the point of a needle. Just imagine 
the dignity of the philosophy which requires the mind 
to be hopping so many times in the minute from a 
state of sanity to insanity, and from a state of insanity 
back to a state of sanity ! Could the man be con- 
sidered sane who believes in such nonsense ? And 
yet this is the great metaphysical system which is to 
" chastise the craniologists" ! 



228 PHRENOLOGY. 

Dr Wigan, who rejects Phrenology, has adopted the 
theory of a double mind, and endeavours to support 
his view by a number of cases, two of which I shall 
quote, as they illustrate the Phrenological position 
which he repudiates. " A celebrated chemist, of a 
mild and social disposition, committed himself a pri- 
soner to an asylum, to save himself from an intense 
desire to commit murder. He used, when he felt the 
desire coming on, to ask to have his thumbs tied to- 
gether. ... A clergyman, of middle age, called on one 
of the most eminent of the physicians devoted to the 
treatment of insanity, and addressed him to the follow- 
ing effect : ' I am come to consult you in my embarrass- 
ment, and hope you will give me a candid opinion. I 
have been for some time engaged in a speculation, into 
which I have unfortunately drawn one of my intimate 
friends, and totally ruined him. It is a dreadful thing 
that a man of my station, and at my time of life, should 
have engaged in so wicked a scheme ; but there is no 
truth in it. I know that I have not done any such 
thing — that I have not entered on any speculation, or 
made attempts to induce any one to join me, — still it 
is so, and I am overwhelmed with my guilt.' " — (Dr 
Wigan on the Duality of the Mind.) If the insanity 
and sanity in these examples must be placed in the 
mind, there is no course left but to adopt Dr Wigan's 
theory of the double mind ; but the Phrenological ex- 
planation, which allows some organs of the brain to 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 229 

be diseased at the time others are in health, is very 
simple and satisfactory, whilst it enables us to steer 
clear of the materialism which necessarily results from 
the duplicity or complexity of mind. 

Dr Clendinning, physician to the St Marylebone In- 
firmary, London, records a very interesting case of 
partial insanity. " A woman, fifty-seven years of age, 
was subject to occasional fits of an epileptic character. 
The night before her admission she had one, and, after 
her recovery from the fit, her mind was afiected ; she 
said that she had been bewitched by somebody in the 
workhouse ; on every other subject her mind appeared 
quite clear, but on this subject she never hesitated ; 
she seemed quite satisfied of the reality of her fancy. 
. . . On examining her person, the head was found hot, 
the carotids full, and resisting compression strongly ; 
her manner and expression indicated excitement ; she 
complained of headache. She was put on broth diet, 
and was cupped on the nape of the neck to eight ounces, 
and had a senna draught immediately. Cold was then 
applied to the head, and light antimonials were ordered. 
In a day or two the head was much relieved, and she 
said she had no trouble from the witch after the second 
day of treatment." — {Lancet^ March 1842.) Here is a 
case of partial insanity, and the man who would say 
the disease was in her mind, instead of the brain, 
might, in my opinion, be classed amongst the insane 
himself. All her symptoms indicated, in the plainest 



230 PHRENOLOGY. 

manner, a determination of blood to the head ; and 
when she was treated by local depletion and other anti- 
inflammatory means, for the purpose of depriving the 
brain of its extra excitement, her hallucination entirely 
disappeared. I do not consider this an example of 
monomania, because, in addition to the hallucination, 
" her manner and expression indicated excitement." 
Consequently the disturbance was not confined to one 
spot in the brain. On the supposition of the imma- 
terial mind being affected, I should like to know how 
Dr Clendinning's treatment could act upon it. On this 
view, the only consistent plan would have been a strong 
appeal to the reasoning faculties ! 

In the year 1838, I attended a man in the town of 
Bally mena who could not be persuaded but he heard 
the joy-bells ringing in Belfast ; and when I said I 
could not hear them, he was very indignant, as he 
imagined I was impugning his veracity. I should like 
to see those parties who attribute such things to the 
mind at the bedside of such a patient. I am afraid 
before their reasoning — for this is the only course they 
would have a right to adopt — could make any favour- 
able impression, the man would be in a hopeless con- 
dition. In fact, it would just be as rational to begin 
to reason with the stones in the walls of his chamber 
as with him. It would be all in vain. I treated him, 
on the ordinary principles of my profession, for a 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 231 

disease of the brain, and he made a speedy and satis- 
factory recovery. 

Having said so mucli on the Phrenological side of 
this question, I shall now turn to take a peep at its 
Metaphysical aspect. Suppose the disease is not in 
the brain, but in the mind, what then ? Why, simply 
this, the mind is material and mortal. As Dr Spurz- 
heim has remarked, at the 75th page of his work on 
Insanity, " We have no idea of any disease, or of any 
derangement of an immaterial being itself, such as the 
mind or soul is. The soul cannot fall sick, any more 
than it can die." Disease is the precursor of death. 
Insanity must be a disease either of the body or the 
mind. We have no valid reason for setting it down, 
as it may suit our convenience, for the one, or the 
other, or for both. This is not fair. A confused mix- 
ing up of the two views is particularly observable in 
Dr Cheyne's writings on insanity. He sometimes rea- 
sons on the idea of the mind itself being diseased; and 
at other times refers all to the state of the brain and 
nerves of the senses. We should fairly and boldly 
adopt either the one side or the other. We will then 
be kept from confusion and inconsistency. 

The case of Sprevale is transferred from Magendie's 
Journal de Pliysiologie to the Phrenological Journal 
for 1825. He was admitted into the Maison-de-Sant^ 
in October 1806, and died in March 1823. " During 



232 , PHEENOLOGY. 

the first ten years of his stay, he remained taciturn 
and slothful, never satisfied when out of bed, and 
scarcely answering the questions addressed to him. 
. . . Sometimes he shook off his apathy, and became 
ill-tempered, and tried to strike every one he met. 
The inferior extremities became more and more feeble, 
till at last he could no longer walk, and he remained 
seven years with the thighs bent upon the pelvis, 
and the legs upon the thighs, without executing any 
movement of these parts. . . . His intellectual facul- 
ties were almost extinct, and he lived only to drink, 
eat, and sometimes get into a passion. . . . He died. 
. . . Dissection ; skull ivory like, three times thicker 
than in the sound state. The dura mater thickened. 
. . . Tne corpora olivaria and pyramidalia were found 
grayish, and soft as houillie. The softening is continued 
over all the anterior part of the medulla ; towards the 
encephalon it can be followed across the pons varolii 
into the crura cerebri, the optic thalami, the corpora 
striata, and some of the cerebral convolutions, espe- 
cially towards the middle of the right lobe." We have 
here a very marked case of insanity accompanied with 
very marked disease of the brain, on dissection. The 
brain was pressed on by a thickened skull and thick- 
ened dura mater ; and there was very extensive soften- 
ing of its substance. Now, whether is it more rational 
to suppose the insanity in this case was owing to the 
state of the brain, or the state of the mind ? Was the 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 233 

apparent extinction of the mental faculties owing to 
the disease in the organs of the brain, or was it the 
mind itself was partly extinguished ? If the mind were 
partly extinguished in this way, how could we, for a 
moment, imagine that it was either immaterial or im- 
mortal ? Impossible ; utterly impossible. 

If one part of the mind, as in partial insanity, has 
become diseased, whilst the rest of it is healthy, as a 
matter of course it must be capable of being divided 
into parts, and consequently must be matter, and not 
spirit, because divisibility is a property essentially be- 
longing to matter, and can never be applied to spirit. 
Hence those who oppose the Phrenological view must 
be materialists. There is no possible way of escape 
for them. If I speak of the body as possessing hands, 
feet, head, trunk, brain, lungs, and abdominal viscera, 
I surely make it compound, and divisible into different 
parts. There can be no mistake about this. Neither 
can there be any mistake about the Metaphysicians 
doing the very same thing concerning the mind, when 
they speak of it, as they always do, as possessing re- 
flection, imagination, will, judgment, understanding, 
emotions, and passions. If this language does not 
make the mind compound and divisible, there is no 
meaning in words. No bodily organs could be more 
distinct in their nature^ than the passions, emotions, 
and reasoning powers, which the Metaphysicians give 
to the mind. If these faculties really pertain to the 



234 PHEENOLOGY. 

mind, it must be divisible, because, as M. Capuron has 
well observed in connexion with another subject, " we 
cannot believe the same organ to be the seat of the 
reasoning principle which controls the passions, and 
of these very passions which so often overthrow the 
reason." 

Even Dr Chalmers has followed the Metaphysicians 
on this point. In his Bridgewater Treatise, he says, 
" Certain it is, that variety in the proportion of their 
faculties^ is one chief cause of the difference between 
the minds men. And whatever the one faculty may 
be in any individual, which predominates greatly 
beyond the average of the rest, that faculty is selected 
as the characteristic by which to distinguish him ; and 
thus he may be designated as a man of judgment, or 
information, or fancy, or wit, or oratory, ... In almost 
all the instances of mental superiority, it will be 
found, that it is a superiority above the average level 
of the species, in but one thing — or that arises from 
the predominance of one faculty above all the rest. . . . 
For the right working of the mind, it is not enough 
that each of its separate powers shall be provided with 
adequate strength, they must be mixed in a certain 
proportion, for the greatest inconvenience might be 
felt, not in the defect merely, but in the excess of some 
of them.'' And again, in his Natural Theology, he re- 
marks, " The supremacy of conscience does not seem 
to have been sufficiently adverted to by Dr Thomas 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 235 

Brown. He treats the moral feeling rather as an indi- 
vidual emotion, which takes its part in the enumera- 
tion along with others in his list, than as the great 
master emotion that is not appeased but by its ascend- 
ency over them all. Now, instead of a single com- 
batant in the play of many others, and which will only 
obtain the victory if physically of greater power and 
force, it should be viewed as separate and signalised 
from the rest by its own felt and inherent claim of 
superiority over them. Each emotion hath its own 
characteristic object wherewith it is satisfied. But 
the specific object of this emotion, is the regulation of 
all the active powers of the soul ; and without this, it 
is not satisfied. ... In the moral system of man we 
see various parts and principles. We see ambition^ 
having power for its object, and without the attain- 
ment of which it is not satisfied ; and avarice, having 
wealth for its object, without the attainment of which 
it is not satisfied ; and benevolence , having for its 
object the good of others, without the attainment of 
which it is not satisfied ; and the love of reputation, 
having for its object their applause, without which it 
is not satisfied ; and lastly, to proceed no further in 
the enumeration, conscience, which surveys and superin- 
tends the whole man, whose distinct and appropriate 
object it is to have the entire control, both of his in- 
ward desires and outward doings, and without the 
attainment of this, it is thwarted from its proper aim, 



236 PHRENOLOGY. 

and remains unsatisfied." I have placed the words in 
itahcs which I wish more particularly to draw atten- 
tion to. It is said there is a variety in the proportion 
of the faculties ; — that one faculty, in the individual, 
predominates over the rest ; that each of the separate 
powers of the mind must have strength ; that none of 
them is to be in excess or defective ; that they must 
be mixed in a certain proportion ; that conscience is a 
master emotion ; that there are distinct principles of 
ambition, avarice, benevolence, love of reputation, &c., 
and that conscience is the master principle which 
superintends them all. If these expressions do not 
divide the mind, and make it compound, if the prin- 
ciples of reasoning here adopted do not divide the 
mind into separate parts, I confess I am not uble to 
understand the meaning of the English language, or 
yet the foundation of Dr Chalmers's reasoning. Words 
could not make the matter plainer than it is. If the 
word " mind '^ were put out, and the word ^' brain " 
were put in, the whole argument would be that of a 
full-fledged Phrenologist. It would then be perfectly 
harmless, because the division of parts, so plainly 
pointed out, would apply to a material organ which is 
capable of division ; but the matter stands in an en- 
tirely different and much more formidable light when 
it has reference solely to spirit, — it is rank materialism. 
It shows in a striking manner the great evils resulting 
from a false philosophy, when a man like the immortal 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 237 

Chalmers failed to be impressed with the consequences 
of his own statements. 

" A mass of metal may be magnetised," says the 
author of Vestiges of Natural History of Creation^ ** or 
heated to 700° of Fahrenheit, without becoming the 
hundredth part of a grain heavier. And yet electricity 
is a real thing, an actual existence in nature, as witness 
its effects of heat and light in vegetation, . . . the 
rending force of the thunderbolt as it strikes the oak, 
(fee. So mental action may be imponderable, intangible, 
and yet a real existence, and ruled by the Eternal 
through His laws." Here mental action is confounded 
with mind itself. The action of mind is made to be a 
real existence, in the same way as electricity is an 
existence. This is a very inaccurate and unphilo- 
sophical mode of reasoning. The action of electricity 
can never be electricity ; neither can the action of 
mind ever be mind. It is highly important, on sub- 
jeots of this description, to reason with philosophical 
accuracy. A loose mode of reasoning is nearly certain 
of leading one into the reception of false principles. 
Indeed, this appears to me to be one great cause of 
the many erroneous principles inculcated in the book 
from which I am quoting. 

In discussing the phenomena of dreaming, Dugald 
Stewart asks, ^' What is the state of the mind in sleep ? 
or, in other words, what faculties then continue to 
operate^ and what faculties are then suspended ? " And 



238 PHRENOLOGY. 

in his Section on Memory, be says, " Among the vari- 
ous powers of the understanding, there is none con- 
cerning which so many important facts and observa- 
tions have been collected, as i\iQ faculty of memory. , . 
It is generally supposed, that, of all our faculties^ memory 
is that which nature has bestowed in the most unequal 
degrees on different individuals. . . . The improvement 
of which the mind is susceptible by culture, is more 
remarkable, perhaps, in the case of memory, than in 
that of an J other of our faculties.^' —{Outlines of the 
Philosophy of the Human Mind.) On another occa- 
sion, when referring to Eobert Burns, Mr Stewart 
said, '^All the faculties of Burns's mmd were, as far as 
I could judge, equally vigorous^ — (Cox on T'he Character 
of Burns.) If some faculties are in action, whilst 
others are suspended during sleep ; if the faculty of 
memory be more susceptible of culture than any of the 
other faculties ; and if all the faculties in Burns's mind 
were equally balanced, it surely must follow, that the 
mind is compound, and divisible into distinct faculties. 
Mr Stewart's expressions make this point as plain as 
it could possibly be. It is just as impossible to mis- 
understand the Metaphysician here, as it would be to 
misunderstand the Physiologist when he speaks of the 
strength of the sinews, bones, and muscles of the 
body. Divisibility is directly and unequivocally im- 
plied in each case. 
It would be utterly impossible to unravel the nature 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 239 

of man, on the metaphysical system, without allotting 
to the mind a number of faculties which are not only 
distinct in their action, but which, in some instances, 
such as may be seen in connexion with cruelty and 
kindness, generosity and avarice, justice and theft, are 
actually antagonistic to each other. Whereas the 
Phrenologist can look upon the mind as a simple, in- 
divisible entity, and yet explain all the peculiarities 
of man's nature, seeing that the mental operations 
are performed and manifested through a compound 
organ, the brain. To account for the phenomena of 
daily life, there must be complexity somewhere. The 
metaphysician is compelled to place it in the mind ; 
but the Phrenologist <;an refer it to the brain. For 
my part, I decidedly prefer the idea of a simple mind 
and a complex brain, to the idea of a simple brain and 
a compound mind. There is nothing unreasonable in 
the supposition that a simple, indivisible mind, may 
have the power of seeing, hearing, and reflecting^ pro- 
vided it is supplied with distmct bodily organs which 
are specially adapted for seeing, hearing, and reflect- 
ing ; and also that all these, and many more opera- 
tions may be going on at the very same time. A simple 
mind, acting through a complex brain, may use any 
or all of the parts of the brain, as the case may re- 
quire. There is no more difficulty in this, than for 
one steam engine to keep one wheel or a hundred in 
motion. If the rest of the machinery suits, one 



240 PHRENOLOGY. 

engine can grind, clean, thrash, scutch, spin, weave, 
and saw, at the same instant. So is it with the simple 
mind and the compound brain. But if the mind pos- 
sesses emotions, passions, judgment, hearing, sight, 
imagination, wit, benevolence, and veneration, inde- 
pendently of the brain, there is nothing in the world 
plainer than that it must be divisible and material. 
There is no possibility of evading this conclusion. 
The ideas of the Metaphysicians about the faculties 
of the mind, give a handle to the materialists which 
could not be obtained from any other source. Priestley 
was neither slow nor pusillanimous in turning them to 
account. ^' We see," said he, '^ that every faculty of 
the mind without exception is liable to be impaired, 
and even to become wholly extinct, before death. 
Since, therefore, all the faculties of the mind, separ- 
ately taken, appear to be mortal, the substance or 
principle in which they exist must be pronounced to 
be mortal too." On the metaphysical plan of placing 
the faculties in the mind itself, Priestley is unanswer- 
able ; but the Phrenologist who looks upon the mind 
as simple, and the brain as compound, can have no 
difficulty in the matter. The organs of the brain may 
be impaired or destroyed, whilst the mind remains in 
its pristine, invulnerable condition. 

The Metaphysicians have felt the absurdity of their 
position regarding the faculties of the mind, and, 
therefore, they tell us they do not exactly mean a 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 241 

faculty when they speak of a faculty, but only under- 
derstand the mind itself in a particular mode of action. 
Or, in other words, their language is to be interpreted 
after a plan of their own, rather than by the plain 
meaning of the words they use, and in accordance 
with the sense of their own line of argument. ' Cer- 
tainly their system drives them to wonderful ex- 
tremes. Thus, Dr Thomas Brown, who is one of the 
ablest of the Metaphysicians, says, ^' The phenomena 
of the mind are only the mind itself existing in certain 
states. . . . All the feelings and thoughts of the mind, 
I have already frequently repeated, are only the mind 
itself existing in certain states." Now, what is the 
result of all this 1 Simply that the mind is never 
itself for one moment. If its feelings and thoughts 
are only itself existing in certain states, it must be for 
ever varying and changing, as there is no end to the 
variety of feelings and thoughts. It would be so far 
altered, by times, that it would not know itself. The 
mind existing in a state of love would not be the same 
as the mind existing in a state of reflection ; nor would 
the mind existing in a state of imagination be the 
same as the mind existing in a state of observation. 
It would never be existing for two seconds in the 
same state. If what are called the faculties of the 
mind, are only the mind itself existing in certain 
states, the mind must have a wonderful, busy, 
changing time of it. It is just dancing out of one 



242 PHRENOLOGY. 

state into another, and would thus serve to amuse a 
child, like the dancing of a sunbeam. As it must all 
act at once, and can act only on one point at one time, 
it has no means of acting, at the same instant, on 
different subjects. The states into which it has to 
throw itself must take a regular succession. If two 
objects, for example, present themselves before us at 
the same time, the one to excite our deep compassion, 
and the other our strongest anger, the mind could not 
deal with both at the same instant, as it must first 
jump into the state of compassion, and then get clear 
of it, before it can jump into the state of anger, and 
vice versa. Is such an idea consistent with our ex- 
perience ? I rather think not. Just imagine the 
mind dancing through the jig of benevolence and 
cruelty, honesty and theft, imagination and reflection, 
wit and veneration, avarice and generosity, and love 
and murder ! ! Verily, the thing is too childish for 
common sense to dwell on for a single moment. It 
looks very insignificant when contrasted with the 
grandeur of the Phrenological idea which enables us 
to contemplate the mind, as an indivisible entity, 
reigning in, and acting through, a congeries of cerebral 
organs in such a way as to receive information on, 
and deal with, a variety of subjects simultaneously. 
"No sooner," says Dr Thomas Brown, " were certain 
affections of the mind classed together, as belonging 
to the will, and certain others, as belonging to the un- 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 243 

derstanding, — that is to say, no sooner was the mind, 
existing in certain states, denominated the understand- 
ing, and in certain other states denominated the will, 
— than the understanding and the will ceased to be 
considered as the same individual substance, and be- 
came immediately, as it were, two opposite and con- 
tending powers in the empire of mind, as distinct as 
any two sovereigns, with their separate nations under 
their control." As the understanding could not be 
the same thing as the will ; and as the mind could 
not be looked on as dancing into understanding 
oue minute, and into will the next ; and as these 
faculties were attributed exclusively to the mind, 
without any regard to the brain, the parties to whom 
Dr Brown refers could not do otherwise than push 
matters to their legitimate extent. They were cer- 
tainly inconsistent, however, as Dr Brown observes, 
'' in asserting the spiritual multiplicity, and at the 
same time asserting the absolute indivisibility of that 
which they divide." 

The Metaphysical idea of the faculties of the mind 
being neither more nor less than the mind itself exist- 
ing in certain states, must be looked at from another 
point of view. Supposing the Phrenologist to be 
wrong in connecting peculiarity of talent with the 
development of a special portion of the brain ; and 
also supposing Dr Thomas Brown to be right in deny- 
ing any real, distinct faculties to the mind ; what are 



244 PHRENOLOGY. 

we then to do with cases of special talent ? How are 
they to be dealt with and explained ? If there are no 
Phrenological organs in the brain with which they are 
connected, and if the mind be devoid of real faculties, 
both great and small, where is the seat of the special 
talent 1 Nowhere. There is not a habitation for it in 
the wide universe. If Dr Thomas Brown be correct 
in stating, that what is commonly called a faculty, is 
only the mind itself existing in a certain state, it is 
then an incontrovertible fact, that there cannot be any 
such thing as a special talent at all, because the mind, 
being a spirit, must have the very same power in one 
state as in every other state. All states must be alike 
to it, and it must be capable of acting equally well 
upon every subject. All men, by nature, must be 
capable of acting exactly alike in practice, or else 
there must be weak spirits and strong spirits, big 
spirits and little spirits, idiotic spirits and sensible 
spirits, deep spirits and shallow spirits, stupid spirits 
and clever spirits. Further, if we take any particular 
individual, on Dr Brown's theory, he must be equally 
talented on every subject, because the faculty for one 
subject is just the whole mind acting on that particu- 
lar point, and we cannot believe the whole mind to be 
strong upon one point and weak on another. 

To my thinking, the above argument is quite suf- 
ficient to settle for ever with Dr Brown's theory about 
the states of the mind, unless it can be shown that 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 245 

all men have exactly the same amount of talent ; and 
that each individual has the same extent of talent for 
every subject. If any of my readers are disposed to 
imagine that any man in the world is equally gifted 
on all subjects, let them just put it to the practical 
test, which is the only test worthy of being relied on. 
Let them select a man who is a great poet, a great 
orator, a great actor, a great imitator, a great ventrilo- 
quist, or a profound reasoner, and put the question to 
him which was put to George Bidder, when he was 
only twelve years of age, and see if he will be able to 
answer it. Of course if his talents are equal on all 
subjects, a man of great ability in any of the branches 
I have mentioned, and with the advantages of an ex- 
tensive education, must be able with the greatest ease 
to answer the question which was answered by an 
uneducated boy. Try him in this way, and you will 
soon see the difference between theory and practice. 
George Bidder was the son of a labouring peasant in 
Devonshire. He exhibited marvellous powers of cal- 
culation from his childhood. At twelve years old he 
was brought to the Stock Exchange, and he was 
there asked the following question ; — If the pendulum 
of a clock vibrated the distance of nine inches and 
three quarters in a second of time, how many inches 
will it vibrate in the course of seven years, fourteen 
days, two hours, one minute and tifty-six seconds ; 
each year to be three hundred and sixty-five days, five 



246 PHRENOLOGY. 

hours, forty-eight minutes, and fifty-five seconds ? 
There is a question for some of our great Meta- 
physicians to answer. I will venture to say it would 
take some of them a week to answer it ; and others 
could not do it at all. George Bidder, however, an- 
swered correctly^ in the space of one minute ^ two thou- 
sand one hundred and sixty-five millions, six hundred 
and twenty-five thousand, seven hundred and forty- 
four inches and three quarters. —(^?iec(io^^5 of From- 
dence.) If this does not prove the existence of a 
special talent, I would like to know what could prove 
it. If Bidder had been equally talented on all other 
points as on this one, he would have combined all the 
wisdom and knowledge in the universe within himself. 
"What we call the power of imagination," says Dugald 
Stewart, " is not the gift of nature, but the result of 
acquired habits, aided by favourable circumstances. 
.... An uncommon degree of imagination constitutes 
poetical genius; a talent which although chiefly dis- 
played in poetical composition, is also the foundation 
(though not precisely in the same manner) of various 
other d.vi^r— {Elements, Ed. 1842, p. 258.) This extract 
demonstrates the inconsistent shifts to which Meta- 
physicians are obliged to resort. Mr Stewart tells us 
the power of imagination is not the gift of nature ; 
that it is only an acquired habit ; and in the next breath 
he informs us, that it is a talent, and not only so, but 
that this talent is the foundation of other arts. We thus 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 247 

find, according to Stewart, that a talent is not a gift of 
nature ; that it is acquired by habit, and that this 
thing which is only acquired, and is not original, is 
actually the foundation of other things ! Such is 
Metaphysics! Such are the sentiments of the naan 
who called loudly for some person ''to chastise the 
follies of these Craniologists ! " The Craniologists may 
be chastised ; but it will require a person with more 
brains than Dugald Stewart to do it. 

The truth is, the idea about the states of the mind 
is only a miserable make-shift of the Metaphysicians 
to get rid of the difficulties in which they are other- 
wise hopelessly involved. They should either turn 
over to the Phrenological side, and adopt the simple 
mind and compound brain, or else at once have 
recourse to the straightforward, manly plan of fairly 
dividing the mind into parts, and thus join the ranks 
of one class of the materialists. Perhaps some 
parties may be disposed to ask, if my view of the 
simplicity of mind be correct, what state are matters 
to be in after death, when the soul is separated from 
the body, — how is the soul to act, if it be not supplied 
with distinct and separate faculties ? If so, I will tell 
them candidly I do not intend to discuss the question, 
just because I know very little about it. We can get 
no information on the subject from the light of nature, 
and there is little in Scripture to satisfy our curiosity. 
I will not go one inch farther than I have necessary 



248 PHUENOLOGY. 

truth, or Eevelation to guide me. Observation is tlie 
foundation of knowledge on matters terrestrial, but on 
matters celestial we must go exclusively by the word 
of Eevelation. Vague speculation will not do here. 
We must stop where Scripture stops. We are in- 
formed that, at death, " the dust shall return to the 
earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return to God 
who gave it ; " and we also learn, from various texts, 
that when the soul is separated from the body, it 
passes directly to either heaven or hell. Beyond this, 
so far as I know, we have very little information, till 
we arrive at the period of the day of judgment. When 
that day comes, the body which was sown in corrup- 
tion, dishonour, and weakness, shall be raised in in- 
corruption, glory, and power, — a perfectly glorious 
body, even like unto the body of Christ. To this 
glorified body, the soul shall be reunited, and then there 
will be the capacity for an inconceivable amount of 
pleasure and happiness. Whether there will be the same 
capacity for enjoyment between death and judgment, 
that there will be after the reunion of soul and body, 
I am not quite prepared to say, but I rather think 
not. Further, we can form no idea of the nature, 
manner, and extent of mental operations and mani- 
festations in a purely spiritual world, where spirit has 
to deal with spirit. Our present powers are not suffi- 
cient to unravel the mystery ; Eevelation gives us very 
little information on the point ; and therefore the 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN ? 249 

only course left for a wise man is to avoid all specula- 
tions on the subject. For my part, I will not attempt 
the investigation, as it is not consistent with either 
philosophy or Christianity to pry into things which 
nature does not disclose, and which the Word of in- 
spiration has not revealed. 

I wish it to be particularly understood that the 
truth of Phrenology should not be tested by, and in no 
way depends upon, the correctness, or otherwise, of 
my views regarding the simplicity of the mind. In- 
deed, so far is this from being the test of the science, 
that I believe I am the only Phrenologist who has 
thought it necessary to examine, in all its bearings, 
fully and completely, the Metaphysical theory regard- 
ing the faculties of the mind. Dr Gall, Dr Caldwell, 
and the Eev. Dr Welsh, have stated their belief in the 
simplicity of mind ; and Dr Caldwell has further 
expressed the opinion, that it is simple in its action as 
well as in its substance ; but none of them has entered 
with any degree of minuteness into the inquiry. So 
far as I am aware, with the exception of those I have 
named, all parties who admit a separate thinking prin- 
ciple, have assented to the division of mind into facul- 
ties, or else have refused to decide on the matter, or 
enter into the question at all. Dr Spurzheim affirms 
that he " makes no inquiry into the nature of the 
soul ; " and Mr Combe says, " Observation reveals as 
little in regard to the substance of mind, as does re- 



250 PHRENOLOGY. 

flection on consciousness ; and as no other modes of 
arriving at certain knowledge are open to man, the 
solution of the question appears to be placed com- 
pletely beyond his reach." I take special exception to 
this last remark of Mr Combe, because it entirely 
excludes the testimony of Scripture, which I regard as 
infallible on every subject on which it speaks. So far 
as Phrenology is practically concerned, it does not 
make the slightest difference whether we look on the 
mind as simple and spiritual, or compound and mate- 
rial. The Phrenological, or compound, brain would 
work equally well in the one case as in the other. But 
the matter is of incalculable importance in a religious 
point of view, and therefore I have given it all the 
consideration I was capable of ; and I feel confident 
my labours will not be in vain. I am sure they will 
tend to the glory of God and the advancement of 
man. 

If we refuse to adopt the Phrenological view of the 
compound nature of the brain, we are compelled to 
divide the mind into distinct faculties or parts, in 
order to be able to explain the mental phenomena, as 
we see them in every-day life. We are thus fairly 
shut up to the doctrines of one class of the mate- 
rialists. Phrenology alone will enable us to avoid the 
nets, and steer clear of the difficulties, which its op- 
ponents have felt. Let us just look at one or two 
examples : — '^ It cannot be doubted," says Pinel, " that 



lb THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN] 251 

to consider the faculties of the mind separately^ would 
contribute to facilitate the study of pneumatology, as 
well as to lead to very important knowledge in regard 
to the nature and varieties of insanity." It is here 
fairly admitted that a division of mind into faculties 
is necessary to the proper study of pneumatology and 
insanity. If insanity were in the mind, it could not 
be interpreted on any other plan. Having alluded to 
the doctrine of the mind being composed of an aggre- 
gate of distinct faculties, Dr Cheyne says, " To this 
assumed doctrine we are not wedded. We think in- 
deed that it receives support from the state of the 
mind in dreaming, and still more in somnambulism. 
... If, however, the reader should have arrived at the 
conclusion that the mind is uncompounded, that its 
faculties are but varied conditions or operations of 
one simple subsistence, we are not so established in 
our own opinion as to wish to unsettle his. . . . While 
the mental faculties continue in their natural state, the 
individual will retain his peculiar character ; but if any 
one of the faculties of the mind should lose its natural 
strength or activity, a change of conduct will soon take 
place. ... A faculty may be altogether destroyed, in 
which case the party may be deprived of the benefit of 
that influence which one faculty often exercises over the 
rest, and inconsistency of conduct, or insanity will be the 
consequence." — (Cheyne on Insanity.) How any man 
could hold such sentiments, and at the same time pre- 



252 PHRENOLOGY. 

tend to believe in the immateriality and immortality 
of the soul, is more than I can possibly imagine. He 
first makes the mind to be compounded of faculties ; 
he next considers it capable of disease ; and he finally 
tells us that a faculty may be altogether destroyed / / 
If the mind be made up of faculties, if these faculties 
can be actually diseased, and if one of them, and of 
course all of them, can be destroyed in cases of in- 
sanity, it must follow that the whole mind can be 
diseased and destroyed ; it is necessarily material and 
mortal. It would be difficult to find any statement 
which more explicitly involves materialism than this 
of Dr Cheyne's ; and yet we never hear the slightest 
complaint made about his sentiments. His book is 
read and valued by religious men. There is not one 
word of complaint. But if the statement that a por- 
tion of the mind might be actually destroyed were 
published by a Phrenologist, we would hear it over the 
length and breadth of Europe. 

Another thought here strikes me. Supposing in- 
sanity to be in the mind, how will a case of partial 
insanity agree with Dr Thomas Brown's idea about the 
faculties being only states of the mind ? If the whole 
mind, as on Dr Brown's supposition, be engaged in 
every thought upon every subject, and if the disease 
be in the mind itself, how can the insanity be mani- 
fested on one point without showing itself on all other 
subjects ? Impossible, utterly impossible. How can 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 253 

the indivisible mind be sane and insane at the same 
time ? Eidiculous, perfectly ridiculous. On the sup- 
position of the inetaphysical theory being correct, the 
managers of Swift's Hospital, Dublin, should have 
been severely punished for confining, as a lunatic, the 
authoress of the following touching lines to the 
memory of her medical attendant, Mr Cusack, the 
eminent surgeon : — 

*' If costly piles should mark where virtue lies, 
And worth by numbers to its grave be borne, 
O'er thee the proudest pyramid should rise, 

And weeping thousands at thy funeral mourn ! '* 

There is no evidence of insanity here, but the very 
reverse. Why, then, was the poor woman confined ? 
How was the mind sane when making poetry about Mr 
Cusack, and yet insane on another subject ? If the 
mind was siraple, and yet diseased, it must have been 
all equally afi'ected. It must either be all sane or all 
insane. Truly the opinions of the Metaphysicians are 
so contemptibly ridiculous that a person cannot but 
wonder how they ever gained a footing in the scientific 
walks of life. 

In April 1861, Professor M^Cosh, of Belfast, gave a 
Lecture to the Presbyterian Young Men's Association, 
Coleraine, on " the association of ideas, and its lessons 
in the training of the mind." Under the head of 
" habit," he gave, as an illustration, a detailed account 
of the effects of whisky and opium on their votaries 



254 PHRENOLOGY. 

till the habit became confirmed and irrevocably 
settled. Now, to be of the slightest use as an illustra- 
tion of, or to be in any way applicable to, the subject 
of discussion, this habit must be supposed to be 
formed in the mind. Otherwise it would throw no 
light on ^Hhe association of ideas in the training of 
the mind," because we cannot for a moment imagine 
that the fact of the body requiring a frequent repeti- 
tion of any impression in order to produce a permanent 
result, is the slightest proof that a spirit must be in 
the same predicament. This would be to subject a 
spirit to the laws of material substances. Conse- 
quently Dr M'Cosh must have been going on the sup- 
position of the habit being formed in the mind. But 
if opium and whisky can thus produce a mental 
habit, it strikes me we are approaching rapidly to- 
wards materialism. Hence it is evident Dr M'Cosh 
and all other Metaphysicians would be saved from fall- 
ing into critical positions, if they would at once adopt 
the correct system of mental philosophy which is 
brought to light by Phrenology. They would then be 
able to see that the habit of eating opium and drink- 
ing whisky is formed in the body, and not in the 
mind. 

The effects of a false philosophy are well seen in the 
following extract from Judge Hayes' charge to the 
Special Jury on the trial of Captain Crosbie for 
lunacy : — " We have to enter upon a consideration 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 255 

more metaphysical than I should have wished it to be. 
The subject of insanity, which we have now to discuss, 
is one which is as susceptible of metaphysical as of 
legal definition. The human mind is, indeed, a compli- 
cated and beautiful machine, made up of its numerous 
faculties — temper, habit, emotion, and sentiment — all 
together making up a wonderful structure from the 
hand of the Divine Creator. It is not for me to 
imagine where this machine has its seat in the human 
brain, but complicated as it is, and beautiful as it is, 
it is not to be wondered at that we should occasionally 
sometimes meet with deranged minds." — (Eeport from 
the Court of Queen's Bench, Ireland, in the Belfast 
JVsws-letter, May 23, 1860.) Judge Hayes here carries 
the Metaphysical theory to its fair and inevitable issue, 
and looks upon the mind as a complicated and divisible 
machine. Unless he would adopt the Phrenological 
idea, he could not possibly follow any other course in 
bringing the case in an intelligible form before the 
Jury. On the Metaphysical plan, he is obliged to 
make the mind divisible, and consequently material 
and mortal in its own nature. 

As I do not intend to lose sight of the followers of 
Sir William Hamilton, I must adduce a few facts for 
their careful consideration regarding the hereditary 
transmission of qualities. If there be one thing better 
established than another, it is, that the peculiarities 
of the parents, whether we may call them mental or 



256 PHRENOLOGY. 

corporeal, are very frequently, to say the least of it, 
manifested in the offspring. " The recognition of such 
a law," says Dr W. A. F. Browne, one of Her Majesty's 
Commissioners in Lunacy, " is not confined to men of 
science. It is universal — it is part of the traditionary 
knowledge of the vulgar, and is one of those truths 
developed by the experience of ages, and gathered 
from those family histories and domestic tragedies, 
which are preserved better, and furnish more ample 
materials for thought among the uneducated, than the 
histories or calamities of nations." 

" A child was admitted into the Long Island College 
Hospital, having a superfluous finger on each hand. 
This was the fourth child of the same parents, all 
having these supernumerary fingers, except the second. 
The first child had but one, and the third child had 
two supernumerary fingers. The mother had one 
attached to the same point as those of her chil- 
dren. The grandmother had two, and the great-grand- 
mother also two. The grandmother's brother had 
supernumerary fingers on each hand, as also had one 
of his nephews. The great-grandmother states that 
her father had the same deformity." — {American Medi- 
cal Times^ No. 16.) 

" Suicide," says the editor of the Medical Gazette^ 
" is undoubtedly hereditary. It is often the only sign 
of madness which shows itself in a family. Fabret 
speaks of a family where a taciturn father had six 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 257 

children, five boys and one girl. The eldest, at forty 
years of age, threw himself out of a window without 
known motive ; the second strangled himself from 
disappointment, at thirty-five ; the third jumped over 
a window ; the fourth shot himself. A cousin threw 
himself into the river." 

Dr Burrows informs us that he ascertained a de- 
cided hereditary predisposition to insanity in six- 
sevenths of his insane patients in private practice ; 
and Esquirol says nearly all the insane committed to 
his charge presented " some irregularities in their 
functions, in their intellectual faculties, in their afiec- 
tions or feelings, before becoming insane, and that 
often from their earliest infancy." — {Br A, Combe.) 
" Gall knew a family of seven,'^ says Dr W. A. F. 
Browne, '' who one and all destroyed themselves. Fal- 
ret mentions a son, a father, and an uncle, who had 
committed suicide. . . . The penurious habits of the 
mother of Elwes, the celebrated miser, led to gradual 
self-destruction by starvation ; she lost her life in 
saving a penny. . . . From the same table, it appears 
that the disease descended in seventy-six from the 
mother, and in fifty-seven from the father. ... I have 
myself compared the sexes of nearly a thousand cases, 
in which hereditary taint could be traced, and find 
that the proportions are as follows : of 969 patients 
treated in various asylums, 440 were males, and 529 

females. . . . Seventeen had one relation affected ; 

R 



258 PHRENOLOGY. 

fifteen, two relations ; two, three relations ; and one, 
four relations. . . . There was one case in which a 
cousin was the relation insane ; in two, a son or daughter ; 
in four, uncle or aunt ; in four, father and mother ; in 
fourteen, father ; in eleven, mother ; and in sixteen, 
brother or sister. ... A patient in the Morningside 
asylum is a suicidal maniac ; her brother committed 
suicide ; her sister has been threatened with melan- 
cholia ; her mother, maternal grandmother, and paternal 
uncle, were all insane." " There have been 214 insane 
patients," says Sir William C. Ellis, '' whose parents 
or relations we have ascertained to have been previ- 
ously insane. In 125 of these cases, no other cause 
could be assigned for the disease coming on than that 
of its beiDg hereditary." "We know," says Haller, as 
quoted by Combe, " a very remarkable instance of two 
noble females, who got husbands on account of their 
wealth, although they were nearly idiots, and from 
whom this mental defect has extended for a century 
into several families, so that some of all their descend- 
ants still continue idiots in the fourth, and even in 
the fifth generation." Sir John Sinclair, in his Code of 
Health and Longevity, quotes, from The Annals of Medi- 
cine for 1801, the case of the Marquis A. J. Brignole, 
who was seized with epilepsy at the age of twenty-four. 
His eldest son, who was born before the marquis had 
any fits and his fourth son and daughters, who were 
born after the fits had been cured in their father, were 



IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 259 

all free from epilepsy ; but his second and third sons, 
who were born at the time the marquis was affected 
with the disease^ were dreadful martyrs to the com- 
plaint, and one of them died in a fit. " James Caines 
was executed at Gloucester in 1825. His grandfather 
was transported, his father hanged, and Caines himself 
is the fourth brother who has died by the hands of 
the executioner.'' — (Phrenological Journal for 1825.) 

1 might go on multiplying examples of this descrip- 
tion to a great extent ; and I might also refer to the 
history of the Cretins, the deaf, the dumb, the blind, 
and the idiotic ; but I think it is quite unneces- 
sary. There is, perhaps, no subject on which the 
public are more generally agreed, than on the fact of 
different qualities being hereditary. It is on this ac- 
count that a reluctance is usually felt to marrying into 
a family where insanity is known to exist. It is 
vulgarly supposed to run in the blood. That a tainted 
constitution, such as from syphilis, is frequently 
transmitted from either father or mother, is proved 
by every-day experience ; but these are not exactly 
the sort of examples to which I am at present allud- 
ing. My observations are intended to apply more 
especially to those instances in which, as I have said 
in another work, such a peculiarity of constitution or 
form is handed down from generation to generation, 
as renders the offspring liable to the same diseases as 
their parents, whenever they are exposed to suitable 



260 PHEENOLOGY. 

exciting causes ; or in which certain defects of develop- 
ment are hereditary. Every person who is a close ob- 
server of nature must be aware that the children often 
very closely resemble either father or mother, or are a 
mixture of both, not only in the features of their face 
and in the organs generally of the body, but also in 
what is called their mental constitution, such as may be 
seen in their temper, talents, tastes, passions, and 
peculiar modes of thought. Now, if idiocy, proclivity 
to crime, a tendency to insanity, temper, tastes, pas- 
sions, and talents are handed down from parents to 
children, on the side of both father and mother, and if 
these things are all in the mind, in place of the body, 
it must follow that the mind itself is hereditary. Just 
see the position my opponents are placed in by such a 
state of matters ! They are compelled to believe that 
the mind is transmitted by the parents, as well as the 
the body. Nay more, inasmuch as the child often 
partakes of what is called the mental peculiarities of 
hoth father and mother, the mind must be composed 
of distinct and different parts, some of them derived 
from the father, and some of them from the mother ! 
Surely this is materialism with a vengeance. For my 
part, I cannot believe that the mind, or soul, is derived 
all from the mother, or all from the father, or a part 
of it from each. I am satisfied the body alone is trans- 
mitted ; and that the soul in every instance is a new 
creation from the hand of the Omnipotent. I believe 



IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 261 

that uothing short of Almighty power can create or 
confer a soul. If my opponents are correct, and the 
mind be supplied in part by the mother, and in part 
by the father, it cannot possibly be a spirit, — it must 
be material and mortal. " If the mind," says Dr 
James Johnson, " be derived from our parents, immor- 
tality is a dream ! No, no. The soul's tenement 
only is transmitted from generation to generation, 
and with it many of its maladies. The immortal 
spark is derived from Heaven, in every sub- 
sequent as in the first creation." — (Economy/ of Health.) 
I may perhaps be asked to explain, on my views, how 
the mind becomes affected with sin. I acknowledge 
my entire ignorance on the subject, and confess that 
I can offer no explanation on the matter. Where Ee- 
velation is silent, and reason cannot enter, I must stop 
and simply receive the doctrine of Scripture, that after 
soul and body are united so as to form a human being, 
the individual is by nature thoroughly and entirely 
affected with, and prone to, sin. 

Dr Abercrombie, in his treatise on the Intellectual 
Powers, says, "The brain, it is true, is the centre of 
that influence on which depends sensation and motion. 
There is a remarkable connexion between this organ 
and the manifestations of mind, and by various diseases 
of the brain these manifestations are often modified, 
impaired, or suspended." When referring, in his 
argument against materialism, to the constant renewal 



262 PHRENOLOGY. 

of the particles of matter in man, he says, "amid 
these changes, he feels that the being, whom he calls 
himself, remains essentially the same. In particular, 
his rememberance of the occurrences of his early days 
he feels to be totally inconsistent with the idea of an 
impression made upon a material organ, unless he has 
recourse to the absurdity of supposing that one series 
of particles, as they departed, transferred the picture 
to those which came to occupy their room." This is 
an able argument, and requires to be f ally considered 
and carefully examined. If I were perfectly satisfied 
with its accuracy, and its capability of proving the 
immateriality of the soul, irrespective of Scripture, I 
would at once receive it ; but I am not. I believe it 
is fallacious, and therefore must reject it. Dr Aber- 
crombie fairly admits that if it establishes an im- 
material principle in man, it does the same for the 
lower animals. The horse will recollect, during all the 
remainder of his life, the house he called at many 
years before. He recollects the experience of former 
years with as much accuracy, and often with far more 
accuracy than man himself. Hence if Dr Abercrom- 
bie be correct, the horse has an immaterial principle 
within him. Some may object to Dr Abercrom^bie's* 
view on this account ; but I do not. We are told in 
Scripture that the spirit of man goeth upward, and 
the spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth. 
I believe the lower animals have spirits which would 



\ 



IS THE BKAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN ? 263 

be immortal if God had not ordained that they were 
to descend to the earth. According to my idea of 
Scripture truth, man and the inferior animals have 
an immaterial principle, which would necessarily be 
immortal if not put an end to by Almighty power. 
Hence I do not, on this head, object to Dr Abercrom- 
bie's principles. My objections to Dr Abercrombie's 
views rest upon another foundation. I utterly deny 
the principle he lays down in relation to personal 
identity. If his argument were correct, the law would 
be universal, regular, and constant, in regard to man. 
There could be no exception whatever, because one 
single exception would ruin and overturn the whole 
theory. I admit his rule would hold good in a state 
of health and sanity, but if we consult the records of 
insanity, we will find hundreds of exceptions. I have 
myself seen several cases in which the patients not 
only did not draw the conclusions Dr Abercrombie 
lays down regarding their personal identity, but they 
could not possibly be persuaded of their own identity. 
They would not believe it ; they thought they were 
some other parties. I cannot forget a scene which 
occurred in my early days, when residing in one of the 
Dublin Hospitals. I was placed in a room to take 
charge of a gentleman who was brought in from the 
streets in consequence of his having gone deranged 
from the effects of drink. I tried to pacify him by 
showing that his conduct was inconsistent with his 



264 PHRENOLOGY. 

official position. But it was of no use ; he would not 
be persuaded that he was Mr So-and-so, and he got 
so dreadfully angry that he threatened my life. He 
tore off all his clothes, as they were not suitable for 
him, as he was the Duke of Wellington at the head of 
his army. In order to protect myself from his fury, 
as I had no assistance, I was obliged to. change my 
tactics to pacify him. I told him if he were the Duke 
it would be quite derogatory to his lofty position to 
condescend to lay his hands on one so insignificant as 
I was. This had the desired effect. It quieted him, 
and probably saved my life. This man did not believe 
in his personal identity. I well remember another 
case, where a man went deranged and would not be per- 
suaded of his own identity. When told he was So-and- 
so, he denied it, and said the body he possessed was a 
dead body. So convinced was he of this, that he held 
out his arm and entreated me to cut it off, as he knew 
it was a dead body, and not his own, and therefore it 
would not bleed even although the arm were cut 
through. He remained in this miserable condition for 
several months ; but eventually recovered. Dr Wigan 
observes, '' I knew a very intelligent and amiable man, 
who had the power of placing before his eyes himself^ 
and often laughed heartily at his double^ who always 
seemed to laugh in turn. This was long a subject of 
amusement and joke, but the ultimate result was 
lamentable, (he committed suicide.) He became gradu- 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 265 

ally convinced that he was haunted by himself. This 
other self would argue with him pertinaciously, and, 
to his great mortification, sometimes refute him, 
which, as he was very proud of his logical powers, 
humihated him exceedingly." — (Wigan's Duality of 
Mind.) 

These, and many similar cases which might be 
adduced, prove a diseased consciousness. There was 
either a double consciousness, or a derangement in the 
feeling of personal identity. Hence they strike at the 
very foundation of the metaphysical system. If the 
consciousness of personal identity belongs exclusively 
to mind, as the Metaphysicians maintain, these cases 
of double, or deranged, consciousness, demonstrate that 
the mind must be divisible and material. There is no 
escape from this. But no such difficulty presents 
itself to the Phrenologist, as he can easily explain the 
whole affair in connexion with a variety of organs in 
the brain. The disease is all in the brain ; part of it 
is healthy, and part of it is diseased ; and the mind^ in 
using these parts, appears sane or insane as the case 
may be. Further, such cases form distinct exceptions 
to the principle laid down by Dr Abercrombie, and 
therefore show that the law he propounds is not uni- 
form, and consequently cannot properly be adduced 
as a proof that the feeling of personal identity must 
be connected with the mind and not with the body. 
In a state of health man is always conscious of his 



266 PHRENOLOGY. 

own identity ; but when labouring under disease, it is 
frequently far otherwise and quite the reverse. For 
this reason, I refuse to admit the correctness of the 
foundation on which Dr Abercrombie rests his argu- 
ment. I would not admit or receive an erroneous 
principle, even although it should establish the most 
important doctrine I hold. I must have truth for the 
foundation, the middle, and the end. 

Dr Abercrombie, if he were alive, could escape from the 
predicament in which 1 have here placed him, by main- 
taining that insanity is specially a disease of the mind 
itself. Indeed, it is difficult to gather from his writings 
whether he exactly holds this opinion or not. Like all 
those who refuse the light of Phrenology, he some- 
times argues as if the mind was the seat of disease, 
and at other times as if it was all in the body. In this 
respect, there is a great amount of confusion and dark- 
ness in the statements of all the antiphrenological 
writers on insanity I have had an opportunity of con- 
sulting. There is a jumbling u^ of mind and matter 
in all they say ; and their theory of mind-disease is 
wonderfully inconsistent with their practice of treat- 
ing it on the principle of its being a bodily affection. 
The confusion of their ideas, and the great inconsist- 
ency of their theory and practice, contrast in a remark- 
able manner with the beautiful simplicity and abso- 
lute consistency of the Phrenological theory and 
practice. Phrenology here shines out to great advan- 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 267 

tage. If Dr Abercrombie escapes from his difficulty 
by asserting disease of the mind itself, he is only 
getting into a worse position. He would then be 
making the mind divisible, material, and mortal ; he 
would then be responsible for all the consequences I 
have already shown to depend upon such a principle, 
and which I need not here repeat. Disease is the 
precursor of death. That which decays^ is sick, or 
diseased, must die. 

Dr Abercrombie's second point is, that the recollec- 
tion of the occurrences of our early days is inconsistent 
with the impression made upon a material organ, un- 
less we suppose that one series of particles, as they 
were removed from the system, transferred the picture 
to those which came to occupy their place. Conse- 
quently, everything which we can call up by memory 
must belong exclusively to the mind. This is an im- 
portant point, and we must have a look at it. I admit 
that the particles of which our bodies are composed 
are continually changing. The old material is being 
constantly absorbed, and new particles are laid down 
in its place. The experiments of Duhamel prove 
beyond all controversy that this change is regularly 
occurring even in the hardest bone. Our bodies this 
day do not possess a single particle of the material of 
which they were composed a few years since. This is 
a remarkable fact. We know it to be a fact, and can 
trace all the links in the chain of operation ; but we 



268 PHRENOLOGY. 

can go no farther. We cannot even guess how it 
comes that, from the same blood, the vessels can 
deposit bone, muscle, tendon, liver, lung, kidney, 
brain, skm, and cellular tissue. We just know it to 
be a law of our organisation that this should be the 
case, and that every tissue shall be laid down with 
perfect accuracy in its own place. We can form no 
idea of how absorption and deposition should be regu- 
larly going on, and at the same time that our personal 
identity should be preserved. Are we justified, how- 
ever, on this account, in adopting Dr Abercrombie's 
principles, which, while they would retain the identity 
of the mind, would entirely overturn the identity of 
the body ? I rather think not. If a man who com- 
mitted murder a dozen years since were to set up the 
plea, that his present body could not be punished be- 
cause it was not the same as the body which com- 
mitted the crime, would the judge allow him to 
escape 1 Certainly not. The law holds the identity 
of the body as well as the mind ; and man not only 
believes it, but, when he becomes a witness, will swear 
to it, and identify the body of the culprit. If he 
would adopt Dr Abercrombie's principles and refuse 
the oath, he would be put in the dock himself. 

I do not pretend to determine how it comes that the 
features of our face remain the same from year to 
year. Neither do I presume to understand how the 
particles of the body can transmit the information 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 269 

they have received to those which are to succeed them 
in the animal machine. The how is beyond my power, 
the fact is within my knowledge. Dr Abercrombie 
may call it an absurdity, but still I am bold enough to 
believe it myself, and further to maintain that Dr 
Abercrombie believed it also. It is one thing to know 
a fact, and another to be able to explain it. I know 
the eyes are the organs of sight, but I cannot tell why 
I should see through my eyes rather than through the 
points of my fiogers. We can ascertain the fact, 
although we cannot explain it. Is it therefore a fact, 
as Dr Abercrombie asserts, that our bodily organs of 
to-day have no knowledge whatever of the experience 
of our bodily organs of last year ? Are his own views 
on other points consistent with his statements on this 
subject ? Is it the horse's mouth, or his mind, that 
gets hardened by the use of the bit ? Is it a man's 
palate, or his mind, that makes him a good wine- 
taster by the dint of experience ? Is it the brain, the 
eye, and the hand of the rifleman, or his mind, that 
gets trained to hitting the mark by the practice of 
years ? Is it the hand, or the mind, that gets accus- 
tomed to the use of the pen in writing ? Is it the 
hand, or the mind, acquires dexterity in playing the 
fiddle 1 In short, will Dr Abercrombie, or any other 
man, assert, if he has no purpose to serve, that the 
organs of our senses gain nothing by experience, and 
are in no way trained by practice ? I am sure no 



270 PHUENOLOGY. 

man would venture on such an assertion. If so, then, 
I turn round on Dr Abercrombie and ask him to 
explain how the palate of to-day has received any in- 
formation from the impressions which were made by 
the wine on the palate of last year. He cannot defiy 
the fact ; and when he explains it, I will unravel any 
other question he chooses to put before me. If Dr 
Abercrombie V7ere correct, the palate of the novice 
should be able to judge the quality of port with as 
much accuracy as the palate of the man who had 
forty years' practice. I hold that the impressions 
made upon our bodily organs are conveyed to the 
brain, and that the mind takes full cognizance of 
them ; but I hold at the same time, and I am sure all 
my readers agree with me in the matter, that the 
organs of the body themselves can be trained and 
improved, and, although it can in no wise be explained, 
that they are decidedly benefited by the practice of 
years, notwithstanding the constant changing of the 
particles which enter into their composition. When 
taken off his guard, however, we find Dr Abercrombie 
making statements which are at direct variance with 
his own assertion on the point in discussion. He 
believes in the improvement of the organs of the 
senses by experience, and consequently in the trans- 
mission of knowledge from particle to particle, as 
firmly as I do. When writing on another point, he 
says, " With regard to all our senses, the truth seems 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 271 

to be, that the first notions conveyed by them are of a 
very limited and imperfect kind ; and that our real 
knowledge is acquired only after considerable observa- 
tion and experience, in the course of which, the im- 
pressions of one sense are corrected and assisted by 
those of others, and by a process of mind acting upon 
the whole." The improvement of the organs them- 
selves by experience is here distinctly recognised ; and 
I am fully entitled to turn Dr Abercrombie's argument 
on himself, and ask how it comes that the organ of 
to-day is benefited by the experience of the organ of 
last year, unless, to use his own words, '' we have re- 
course to the absurdity of supposing that one series of 
particles, as they departed, transferred the picture to 
those which came to occupy their room 1 " 

The Metaphysicians and Physiologists have some- 
times puzzled themselves to ascertain how it is that 
the mind and brain can call up a recollection of things 
which are past, by what is called an act of memory. 
To me, this has always appeared a fruitless inquiry. 
We know from experience that we have the power of 
recalling the past ; but to explain the how and the 
wherefore is beyond our reach. We know it to be a 
fact that our ears are for hearing, but we cannot tell 
how it comes that we hear by our ears, rather than by 
the soles of our feet. We may find out many things 
respecting the laws of memory and hearing, but how 
we remember and hear, or wh^ one part of our body is 



272 PHRENOLOGY. 

capable of the operation, instead of another, we cannot 
possibly divine. We know it as a fact ; we know that 
God has ordered it so ; and there we ought to stop, 
and rest satisfied, without perplexing ourselves about 
what never will be known by us in this life. 

The observations I have already made in regard to 
partial insanity as a proof of the plurality of organs in 
the brain, will apply in all their force to cases of 
partial Idiocy. Let us look at a few examples. Foder6, 
one of the most eminent of the French physicians, 
who was an enemy to Phrenology, tells us, that some 
of the Cretins, who are in the most deplorable condi- 
tion imaginable, — such a condition as would shock 
humanity to think of, — he tells us, I say, " that several 
of this class of individuals, possessed of such feeble in- 
tellect, are born with a peculiar talent for copying, 
drawing, for finding rhymes, and for music. I have 
known several," he continues, " who have learned, by 
themselves, to play tolerably on the organ and the 
harpsichord ; and others who understand, without having 
been taught, how to repair clocks, and to make some 
pieces of machinery. This, probably, depends on the 
more perfect organisation of the organ with which 
such an act is connected, and not on the understand- 
ing ; for these individuals not only could not read the 
books which treated of the principles of their art, but 
they were confounded if spoken to on the subject, and 
never improved themselves." — {Gall.) I am not cer- 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 273 

tain what Fodere means by stating that this peculiarity 
probably depends on the perfection of the special organ 
concerned, and not on the understanding. He cannot 
mean the Phrenological organs, because he was not a 
believer in Phrenology, and because he sets out by 
saying that it all occurs "by an inexplicable singu- 
larity." It is very easily explained and understood on 
the Phrenological system, but in every other view it is 
perfectly inexphcable. It proves that the brain is 
composed of a number of organs performing different 
functions, and that some organs may be properly 
developed, whilst others are in such a rudimentary 
condition as to be incapable of the proper manifesta- 
tion of the mind. We are informed by Mr Schlatter, 
of St Gall, that " the celebrated painter of cats, named 
Mind, in Berne, was an idiot, in the fullest sense of the 
word, and was altogether childish in his manners ; yet 
he had such a great tendency and talent for painting 
from his youth upwards, that he represented in various 
pictures, large and small, his numerous favourites, 
(cats,) of both sexes and of every age, in every possible 
attitude and action, with the most striking effect, and 
completely true to nature in their forms, proportions, 
and colours." — {Phren. Journal, Oct. 1844.) I recollect 
seeing at the Duke of Leinster's, about the year 1834, 
a house which was composed of shells ; and the shells, 
in the internal compartments, were arranged in such a 
manner as to represent a great variety of scenery, 



274 PHRENOLOGY. 

showing land, water, mountain, valley, hill, and dale. 
Altogether it was an object of great interest ; and I 
was informed it was all planned and executed by a 
simpleton. Mr Combe relates a remarkable case of an 
idiot, in Liverpool, named Jones. Such is his facility 
in acquiring languages, that if he is shown a passage in 
the Bible, he will point out and read the parallel pas- 
sages in seven or eight other languages, although he 
has not the slightest idea of the meaning attached to 
the words. In the asylum for idiots at Earlswood, 
near London, there is a boy " who is an excellent 
draughtsman, and who made the model of a man-of- 
war, every part of which is in just proportion and 
strictly correct, although he could not work by a scale ; 
nor could he possibly be made to understand the value 
of money." — {Chamber i s Journal, Nov. 1859.) 

Now, in regard to all these cases of partial idiocy, if 
the defect be in the brain, it is just as impossible for 
the brain to be a single organ, as it would be for a man 
" to have the power of walking east without having the 
power of walking west." There must be a plurality of 
organs, or else the idiocy, in place of being partial, would 
be complete. If the whole brain performed but one 
function, a defect in its structure must tell equally upon 
every subject. But partial idiocy is very easily under- 
stood in the light of a complex brain. If diflferent 
parts perform different functions, and the ojgan is un- 
equally developed, it is extremely easy to see that the 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN] 275 

mental mauifestations will be correct and proper 
through those portions which are properly developed, 
and quite idiotic through those parts which are so 
defective as to be merely rudimentary. This is as 
simple as that two and two make four. The organs 
are different in the exact same way as there are dif- 
ferent parts in the brain for hearing, seeing, and sinell- 
ing ; and as a man may be deaf without being blind, 
or bhnd without being dumb, so may he be idiotic in 
some faculties without being idiotic in others. And 
the fact of the idiocy being partial, proves, if it be in 
the brain, that the brain is not a single, but a com- 
pound organ. Let us suppose, on the other hand, that 
the idiocy is in the mind ; what then ? The mind 
must be material. If one part of it be idiotic, whilst 
another part is sound and strong, of necessity it must 
be divisible, material, and mortal. On this view, it is 
utterly impossible to escape materialism. The meta- 
physical whine about the states of the mind will give 
no relief here. We cannot believe that the whole mind 
is jumping out of a state of idiocy into strength, and 
out of a state of strength into idiocy, with every sub- 
ject which engages the attention during life. Such a 
belief would make us thorough '' tom-fools." In the 
speech delivered by the late Earl of Carhsle, at the 
Asylum for Idiots, idiocy is as plainly as possible made 
to reside in the mind. " To their stagnant minds," 
says his lordship, " literature, and science, and art, and 



276 PHRENOLOGY. 

the sacred muse, utter no varied voice ; to their torpid 
souls, devotion points no God. . . . The managers will 
not tell you, that they hope to convert the patients 
whom they receive within this institution, into philo- 
sophers, orators, poets, statesmen. The instantaneous 
cure, the entire change of the possessed mind, were 
the work of Him alone, whose voice the demons heard, 
and at once came out. . . . Much may be done. . . . 
In fact, the soul may, as it were, be re-created, so that 
the idiot may be converted into a decent member of 
society."— {Life of the Rev. Br Andrew Reed^ p. 401.) 
This paragraph from beginning to end breathes the 
strongest materialism. The connexion between idiocy 
and the state of the brain is well illustrated by the 
following example. " Two cases of congenital idiocy 
have been reported to us, in which the cranium was 
so low that the representations given of them call to 
mind the state of the skull in hemicephalous monsters ; 
but here the cranium is perfect. These idiots are the 
two sons of a widow named Sohn, living within a mile 
of Bromberg ; one is aged seventeen, the other ten 
years. Both, enjoying excellent health, are at the same 
time so stupid that they do not remember their way 
back to their home if they leave it but a short dis- 
tance.'^ — {M U ller'^s Physiology.) 

There are few things which prove the existence of a 
plurality of organs in the brain more clearly and satis- 
factorily than the fact, that memory is almost invari- 



IS THE brai:n" a compound organ? 277 

ably partial. One man recollects all the faces, and per- 
haps all the places, he ever saw, without the slightest 
difficulty or exertion ; but let him use what efforts he 
may, he cannot remember events, dates, or numbers. 
Another person can solve the most difficult questions 
in arithmetic, without either pen or pencil, and has the 
most vivid recollection of chronology and history ; but 
perhaps is unable to recognise a person on the street 
to w^hom he has been introduced a few days before ; 
and if he be left alone in the heart of a city, he will 
probably go astray. Again, a person may recollect 
faces, places, numbers, events, and facts, without being 
able to repeat poetry or remember music. We often 
meet with parties who can recollect one thing without 
having a memory for several other things. Indeed, 
there are few men who possess a good memory on 
every subject. I have seldom seen such a man ; and 
I am certain there is not a man in the world whose 
memory is equally good on every subject. There will 
still be some point on which his memory will be better 
than on others. Dr Gall records the case of a notary 
who, after an attack of apoplexy, forgot his own name, 
and the names of his wife, children, and friends, al- 
though he remembered many other things. That 
memor}^ is generally partial no man can deny. Every 
person who carefully consults his own experience must 
be aware of the fact. It is complete moonshine to say 
that the difference which we find amongst men on this 



278 ' PHRENOLOGY. 

point] is altogether owing to the attention they may 
happen to bestow on the special subjects concerned. 
There must be a difference in the original capacity. 
Attention could not possibly account for it. For ex- 
ample, my own memory for forms, faces, and places, 
is such, that I do not require to make any exertion in 
the matter. So far from having any difficulty in re- 
membering them, I cannot possibly forget them. On 
this head, to remember gives me no trouble, to forget 
is out of my power. The case is far otherwise, how- 
ever, on some other points. No amount of exertion and 
attention which I can possibly command, will enable me 
to recollect names, dates, and numbers. It matters 
not how anxiously I may apply myself to the task, I 
cannot by any means accomplish it. It is beyond my 
power. These and all similar facts are capable of 
being explained in the most satisfactory manner on 
the Phrenological principle, which teaches that the 
brain is composed of a variety of organs performing 
different functions, and that each organ has a memory 
of its own. The strength of memory, then, on any 
particular subject, will depend upon the development 
of the special organ which deals with that particular 
point ; whereas, if memory depends upon the brain, and 
if, as our opponents maintain, the brain be a single 
organ performing a single function, the memory 
would of necessity be perfectly equal on every 
subject. Surely this is a sufficient reply to Professor 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 279 

Rudolplii, who thought that the mind, in the mani- 
festation of different powers^ in place of requiring a 
compound brain, only required a single brain varying 
in its absolute size. An increase in the absolute size 
of a single brain, will increase its general power ; but 
could not by any means whatever increase its power 
on one point without increasing it on all. A partial 
increase proves a divided organ. 

Now, take it for granted that the Phrenologists are 
wrong, and the Metaphysicians right regarding memory, 
— that it is a power belonging to the mind and not to 
the brain, and what is the necessary result ? Nothing 
more or less than that we must be materialists. If the 
memory belongs exclusively to the mind, and if, as can- 
not be denied, it is extremely powerful on some points, 
and extremely weak and defective on other points, the 
mind must be strong in some parts and weak in other 
parts, and consequently is divisible, material, and mortal. 
Nay, more, on this view, as age creeps on, the mind de- 
cays in the memory part, and begins to dote ! A fair in- 
terpretation of the system of our opponents would make 
immortality a dream ; and the great floods of infidelity 
which at times have overrun the world, must have been 
materially promoted by the opinions of what has been 
very improperly called the Christian Philosopher. If 
the memory pertained exclusively to the mind, it would 
be equally strong on all subjects, and at all times. 
The mind could not be a spirit, if it were strong on 



280 i PHRENOLOGY. 

one point and weak on another,— if it were weak to-day 
and strong to-morrow. Just imagine a spirit becoming 
imbecile, weak, tired, and exhausted ! Should my 
opponents not be ashamed of their childish opinions ? 
It has been well observed, if the brain were a single 
organ, fatigue of one part should exhaust the energies 
of the whole. Experience, however, informs us, that 
after our reflecting organs have become wearied by 
directing our attention, for a length of time, to a close 
process of reasoning, we can turn with pleasure and 
comfort to poetry, fiction, music, conversation, or 
some other subject which will call forth a new set of 
faculties into activity ; and this proves that the organ 
is compound. I might walk till my legs would be so 
tired that I could use them no longer ; but that would 
not hinder me from sitting down and using my hands, 
which were quite fresh for the work. So is it with 
the brain. When one set of its organs has been 
thoroughly exhausted, that set may be allowed to rest 
and recruit its energies, whilst another is called into 
action ; and we will thus be able to pursue a new sub- 
ject with pleasure and ease. Dr Burchell, the African 
traveller, when speaking of the stupidity of one of the 
natives, called Mochunka, says, ''it was evident that 
exertion of mind, or continued employment of the 
faculty of thinking, soon wore out his powers of re- 
flection, and rendered him really incapable of paying 
any longer attention to the subject." Burchell here 



IS THE BKAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 281 

distinctly places the exhaustion in the mind, and 
therefore, although he should have known better, is 
far behind Tissot, who, in speaking of disorders pro- 
duced by incessant application to one subject, says^ 
" in this case, there is only one part of the sensorium 
acted upon, and that is kept always on the stretch ; it 
is not relieved by the action of the other parts, and 
therefore is soon fatigued and injured.'^ 

I hope all my readers have thought as much as is 
sufficient to convince them that deep reflection is fol- 
lowed by a feeling of weariness and exhaustion in the 
brain. If they have never felt this, I pity their condi- 
tion ; and if they have felt it, they will admit the fact 
without further proof. The all-important question 
now comes. Is the fatigue in the mind or in the brain ? 
The Phrenologist says a spirit cannot be wearied, and 
therefore the exhaustion must be in the brain, which 
is the material instrument through which the mind 
operates. But the metaphysical school, to which 
Lord Jeffrey and Dr Abercrombie belong, must take 
the opposite view of the matter. " There is not the 
smallest reason for supposing," says Lord Jeffrey, 
" that the mind ever operates through the agency of 
any material organs, except in its perception of mate- 
rial objects, or in the spontaneous movements of the 
body which it inhabits ; " and Dr Abercrombie asks 
what reason we have " for believing that the mind 
should be affected by any change in the arrangement 



282 PHRENOLOGY. 

of material organs, except in so far as relates to its 
intercourse with this external world." Consequently, 
they hold that the mind, during a process of deep 
reflection, never uses any material instrument what- 
ever. If, then, the mind in deep reflection never uses 
a material organ, and if, as cannot be denied, pain and 
fatigue are produced far more readily by a process of 
deep and abstracted reflection, than '' by the percep- 
tion of material objects," the mind itself must of 
necessity be liable to exhaustion and fatigue. This is 
the necessary result of such metaphysical opinions. 
But, I ask, is this not the rankest materialism ? If 
the mind can get tired, it must be matter. We can- 
not for a moment imagine that a spirit can stop 
through fatigue. Such a supposition is preposterous ; 
and here again I am forced to the conclusion that no 
man but the Phrenologist can escape materialism. 

Having taken a survey of the human constitution, 
I am prepared to say there is no example of two func- 
tions being performed by the same part. On the con- 
trary, every function has an organ specially appro- 
priated to itself. For instance, the heart, the lungs, 
the eye, and the ear, all perform distinct duties, and 
no one of them is able exactly to take the place of the 
other in the animal economy. The loss of sight may 
compel us to cultivate to a greater degree the senses 
of hearing, smelling, and feeling, so as, to a certain 
extent, to compensate for the want of vision ; but 



IS THE BRATN A COMPOUND OEGAN 1 283 

these other senses can never acquire the power of see- 
ing. Their own natural function may be improved, 
but thej cannot acquire the power of another organ. 
Every organ is limited to its own duty. There are 
various cases, however, which, to superficial thinkers, 
like Dr Roget, might appear exceptions to the rule I 
have here laid down ; but they are not so in reality. 
For example, the tongue both speaks and tastes ; but 
if it does, it is furnished with one nerve for taste, and 
another nerve for motion, and consequently is a double 
organ performing a double function ; so that, in place 
of being an exception, it is a proof of the rule, that a 
double function is an indication of a compound organ. 
The same explanation will apply to all the examples 
with which I am acquainted. May we not conclude, 
then, with Gall and Spurzheim, by a strong analogical 
argument, that each mental manifestation takes place 
through a special and appropriate organ, and that the 
brain consequently is not an exception to that unifor- 
mity of design which we are able to trace in every 
department of nature, and which is such an admirable 
proof that all we see around us has sprung from the 
hand of a great and wise Creator ? 

It seems, however, Dr Roget has made a great dis- 
covery. He has discovered that a single organ can 
perform a double function. "Does not the same 
stomach," says he, " digest very different and even 
opposite kinds of aliment ? Yet we do not find that 



284 PHRENOLOGY. 

one portion of that organ is destined for the digestion 
of meat, and another for the digestion of vegetable 
matter." — (Physiology and Phrenology^ vol. i. p. 58.) 
Does Dr Eoget really believe he has here given an 
example of a double function ? As well might I main- 
tain that speaking is a fifty-fold function, because 
Carey and Burritt could speak in fifty languages, or 
dialects. Surely it is the same gastric juice which 
digests the one kind of aliment that digests the other ; 
and hence the function must be single. But if Dr 
Koget can show that the stomach must secrete one 
kind of gastric juice for the animal, and an entirely dif- 
ferent kind for the vegetable, food, then I reply, in 
place of being a single organ, it must be a compound 
viscus, containing a double apparatus for secretion. 
This is the rational way of looking at it. I am sure 
Dr Eoget would not venture to assert that the com- 
mon mucus and the gastric juice are both secreted by 
the very same vessel. Wherever there is a complex 
function, we have a decisive proof of a complex organ. 
The first volume of the Phrenological Journal con- 
tains an able answer to this argument of Dr Eoget, 
from the pen of Dr Andrew Combe. ^' The function^'' 
says Dr Combe, ^' is the same in all, the subject only is 
different. Digesting is no more than digesting, whether 
it be performed on turtle or roast beef, animal food 
or vegetable. In like manner, no Phrenologist ever 
asserted that one part of the organ of causality reasoned 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN ? 285 

in political economy, another in metaphysics, and a 
third in medicine ; or that one portion of the organ 
of tune was destined to produce soft and plaintive 
notes, and another bold and warlike music. We only 
maintain, that as the stomach cannot secrete bile, nor 
perform the office of kidneys, neither can the organ 
of causality produce a relish for music, nor that of 
tune a talent for logical reasoning. We have never 
said that causality cannot be exercised on all sorts of 
subjects, sacred or profane, important or trifling ; but 
we have said, that no change of subject will ever change 
its specific function of reasoning, any more than any 
change of diet will change that of the stomach from 
digestion to the secretion of bile." 

If Dr Roget be driven from this stronghold, he 
has a more impregnable fortress still to enter. 
" Nerves," says he, '' perform the double office of voli- 
tion and sensation ; but the different bundles of fibres 
which convey each impression, the one to the muscles, 
the other to the sensorium, are wrapped up in the 
same sheath, and are so intimately intermixed during 
their course as to constitute a single cord,'' — (Physio- 
logy and Phrenology^ vol. i. p. 59.) This surely is a 
poser. We have here got a single cord performing two 
very different functions ; why may a single brain not 
do the same ? To use Dr Roget's own words, " Guided 
by such analogies as these, might we not be equally 
justified in concluding, that the same part of the brain 



2S6 PHKENOLOGY. 

may serve for the memory of words, as for the memory 
of things ; and that the same portion of that organ 
which enables us to conceive the idea of figure, may 
also suggest to us that of size ? " To be sure you 
might, provided only the analogical case upon which 
you ground your argument is true. If a nervous cord, 
which is in reality single in its nature, can perform a 
double function, there could be no reason why a single 
brain might not do the same. But here, as in many 
other cases, the whole point turns upon the if. The 
case I am now considering gives us an excellent ex- 
ample of the difference between a mere superficial writer 
and a profound thinker. Dr Eoget looked at a nerv- 
ous cord which performed two very distinct functions, 
and because, to his eye, it looked single, he at once 
drew the conclusion that the same part can perform 
two duties which are entirely different in their nature. 
But Dr Spurzheim looked at the same cord, and, in 
the spirit of true philosophy, when he found it per- 
forming two functions, he drew the conclusion that it 
must be a double organ ; that it must be composed of 
distinct and dissimilar fibres running in the one sheath. 
(See Spurzheim's Fhydognomy ; and also his Anatomy 
of the Brain,) The same idea had previously occurred 
to Prochaska. " No reader of Prochaska's works," says 
Dr Carpenter, " can avoid the conclusion that he enter- 
tained the speculative opinion, that the nervous fibres 
conducting impressions to the central organs, and trans- 



IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 287 

mitting motor impulses from them, were distinct." — 
{Medical Gazette^ June 1841.) Here, then, we have Pro- 
chaska, in the end of the seventeenth centm*y, and Spur- 
zheim, in 1815, coming to the very rational conclusion, 
that, although a spinal nerve is a single cord, enveloped 
in a single sheath, and, as far as the eye is concerned, 
looks to be a simple nerve, it must yet be a compound 
organ in reality, because it performs two functionsr 
which are entirely dissimilar. This was surely a very 
rational opinion ; but Dr Roget took a different view 
of the case, and adduced the example of the spinal 
nerves to overthrow Phrenology. It must have been 
dreadfully mortifying to him, however, to find that the 
opinions which were broached by Prochaska and 
Spurzheim in regard to the structure and functions 
of the spiual nerves were afterwards proved to be ab- 
solutely correct, by the experiments which were per- 
formed by Sir Charles Bell, Magendie, Mayo, Marshall 
Hall, and many others, in and after the year 1821. 
The discoveries of these Physiologists have made sad 
havoc of Dr Roget' s argument. But so far as I am aware, 
he has never had the manliness and honesty to come 
forward with a public acknowledgment of his igno- 
rance and mistake. If he had done so, like a man, he 
would have redeemed his position. It was observed 
by Dr Andrew Combe, in 1824, that the example of the 
voluntary nerve is a strong corroboration of the truth 
of Phrenology, in place of being against it. Dr Roget 



28S PHRENOLOGY. 

looked at the nerve, and because it appeared single, 
although it performed a double function, he drew the 
conclusion that a single organ can perform two oppo- 
site duties ; but the experiments and observations of 
Bell, Magendie, and others, demonstrated, what Pro- 
chaska and Spurzheim had previously believed, that 
it performed a double duty, because it was a double 
organ. So in regard to the brain. To the eye of the 
Physiologist, it may appear to be a single organ ; but 
inasmuch as it is well known to perform a great variety 
of duties, it may be fairly presumed to be a compound 
viscus ; and that it is so, has been demonstrated by 
Gall and Spurzheim. 

If we pass through the wide expanse of comparative 
anatomy, we will find that in the lowest grade of ani- 
mated existence there is no brain at all ; when we 
advance a little higher in the range of creation, the 
brain becomes apparent, and, from being a simple 
protuberance, step by step as we proceed, it is increased 
in size by the addition of new parts, in the shape of 
processes, convolutions, and lobes, until -at last we 
arrive at man, who is distinguished from all other 
creatures by the very great size of the anterior and 
superior lobes of his brain. If the brain were a single, 
and not a compound, organ, where would be the neces- 
sity for all this variety ? It would be a superfluity in 
nature, and derogatory to the perfection of the works 
of God. 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ] 289 

The theory of a single brain could not possibly ac- 
count for the successive development of the faculties 
in children. They experience attachment^ anger, and 
fear, as Mr George Combe has remarked, long before 
they have any relish for the sublime and beautiful ; 
and they are able to observe surrounding objects long 
prior to , the exercise of their reasoning powers. If 
this difference depends on the state of the brain, it 
shows clearly that the brain is composed of a variety 
of parts performing different functions, and that the 
different parts are called into play, and matured in 
their structure, at different periods of the child's 
growth. But if we presume the difference to exist in 
the condition of the mind, we are then compelled to 
divide the mind into as many distinct faculties, which 
come into play, grow, and are matured as material 
parts, at different periods, and consequently must be 
material and mortal. 

The phenomena of dreaming have always been inex- 
plicable on the principles of the metaphysicians. To 
the Phrenologist, however, they present no difficulty 
whatever. The brain is composed of a number of 
organs performing separate functions ; some of these 
organs may be very deeply under the influence of 
sleep, and therefore incapable of manifesting the 
mental operations, whilst the remainder may be more 
or less in a state of activity ; and this will permit of 
the operation called dreaming. If dreaming depended 



290 PHRENOLOGY, 

exclusively on the state of the mind, the mind would 
require to be compound, and material, in order to 
admit of one part being asleep whilst another was 
awake and active. But if, as Gall and Spurzheim 
maintain, it results from the nature and condition of 
the brain, it is a sure proof that the brain is composed 
of a variety of parts performing different functions. 
During the time the eyes are closed in sleep, a person 
can turn in bed, hear and answer questions, or walk 
about. This shows that some of the organs of the 
senses may be asleep whilst others are awake. So is 
it with the brain. Some of its organs may be active 
whilst others are fast asleep, and thus produce dream- 
ing or somnambulism. ^'I knew an instance of a 
miller," says Gall, '' who, while dreaming with his eyes 
open, went into his mill, occupied himself there, as he 
usually did in the daytime, and then returned to bed^ 
without having the faintest recollection^ in the morn- 
ing, of his night's work," 

When we are anxious to increase the activity of our 
reflecting organs, as Gall and Spurzheim have re- 
marked, we go into retirement, withdraw ourselves 
from external excitement, and perhaps close our eyes 
and place our hands over them. We are thus able, by 
throwing a number of organs out of use, to concentrate 
all our power on a few, and thereby to increase their 
activity. The same condition exactly occurs in dream- 
ing» The tranquillity of some organs will allow the 



IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND OEGAN? 291 

vital energies of others to be increased, so that, as Dr 
Spurzheim has observed, ^* dreaming persons some- 
times reason better than they do when they are 
awake." I can corroborate this observation from my 
own experience. I recollect, on one occasion, deliver- 
ing, in a dream, an oration, which, for language and 
matter, I could not equal in my waking moments. I 
remembered every word of it when I awoke ; but I 
never since could compose anything at all to compare 
with it. I also had an opportunity of witnessing an 
example of a similar nature in a patient. He lived a 
reckless life, and paid no attention to religious matters. 
I was called to see him, in company with his own 
medical attendant, whilst he was labouring under a 
severe attack of delirium tremens. On our arrival, we 
found him asleep from the effects of some soothing 
medicine ; and, to the surprise of all who heard him, 
he prayed in an audible voice, in the most accurate, 
eloquent, and able manner. This I am sure was more 
than he ever did whilst awake. 

Perhaps some parties may imagine that the idea of 
a plurality of organs in the brain is inconsistent with 
the results of the surgical cases already adduced, where 
pressure on one part of the brain destroyed, for the 
time being, all the mental manifestations. This, how- 
ever, is easily and satisfactorily accounted for by the 
fact that the brain is a softish mass, and therefore 
that pressure on one part of it may sometimes be 



292 PHRENOLOGY. 

communicated to the whole, on the same principle 
as pressure on the end of a pillow, or an air-cushion, 
may be distributed through all its dimensions. In 
regard to the brain, the direction of the pressure will 
materially alter the results. If it be upwards, or side- 
ways, it will not produce the same effects as down- 
wards ; because the downward pressure may reach the 
commissures, or those parts which unite the different 
lobes so as to form of the whole one brain, and thus 
interrupt the cerebral action on every point. An idea 
just now strikes me. If pressure, confined strictly to 
one spot, interrupts all the mental manifestations, it 
would not after all prove that the whole brain is a 
single organ. It would only show that all the mental 
manifestations took place through the one spot, and 
that the remainder of the brain was either useless or 
destined for some other purpose. In fact, it would 
demonstrate that it was a compound organ. But, again, 
if the pressure was removed from this spot and placed 
on a contiguous part, the mental manifestations would 
again become affected, showing beyond doubt that the 
part which previously was supposed to be useless, 
really had to do in the manifestations of mind. 
Hence the only way of properly accounting for the 
facts, is, by supposing that pressure is communicated, 
beyond the immediate locality, through a pultaceous 
mass, like the brain. It is only on this principle the 
Physiologist could account for the effects of pressure 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN? 293 

on the brain, as they are sometimes seen by an exami- 
nation of the functions of some, or all, of the nerves of 
the senses. Whatever explanation the Physiologist 
will give of the matter in relation to the nerves of the 
senses which have their roots in the brain, will equally 
suit the Phrenologist. They have both to meet the 
point on the same grounds ; — the grounds of a com- 
plex organ. If the pressure was in all cases strictly 
confined to the spot where it commences, and if the 
brain was a single organ, the effects would invariably 
be the same whether the pressure was upwards, down- 
wards, or sideways. This, however, we know is not 
the case ; and hence, in order to account, on either 
Phrenological or Physiological principles, for the 
variety arising in practical experience, we must sup- 
pose that the pressure is communicated to contiguous 
parts of the spft mass of which the brain is composed. 
Of all the opinions that have ever been promulgated 
there is none which appears to me more absurd than 
the one which supposes that all men at birth are gifted 
alike ; and that all the diversity which they exhibit 
in after life is owing to education and the circum- 
stances in which they happen to be placed. Such, 
we learn, was 'the doctrine of Beccaria, Diderot, and 
Helvetius. This opinion may suit very well for those 
who are fond of theory ; but it would not be easy to 
get the public to believe it, as their practical observa- 
tion has long since convinced them that there is every 



294 PHRENOLOGY. 

variety and degree of natural talent, from the greatest 
philosopher or statesman down to the mere simpleton. 
That all men are born with the same power of mind, 
may be true or false for aught I can tell ; but of this 
I am quite certain, that the organisation through 
which the mind acts is very different in different cases. 
Practically considered, there is an original and in- 
superable difference amongst men. Whilst I attach 
very great importance to the influence of education 
and favourable opportunities, I cannot for a moment 
imagine that they could convert a Burke or a Hare 
into a Howard or a Fry : nor is it consistent with 
rational experience to suppose that every man we 
meet could be converted by these things into a 
Newton, a Shakespeare, a Scott, a Mozart, a Herschell, 
a Stephenson, a Keynolds, a Wellington, a Johnson, or 
a Peel. Besides, the advocates of the doctrine of 
equality have not given us any rules by which we 
may certainly raise ourselves to the greatness of these 
men. For my part, I would be glad if they could do 
so, as I would not be one whit behind the greatest 
philosopher the world ever saw, if I could help it. 
Because education and favourable circumstances are 
able to do a great deal, some parties seem to imagine 
they are able to do anything and everything. This 
may be a very consoling theory; but the great body 
of those who may rely upon it will one day find out, 
with deep mortification, that they have mistaken the 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND OBGAN ? 295 

laws of nature ; they will drop far, very far, short of 
the lofty pinnacle to which they attempted to soar* 
That all men are not born with the same natural 
powers is so abundantly evident that 1 am surprised 
any person could ever have doubted it. Men who sit 
in their studies and call themselves philosophers may 
question it; but the careful observer of nature will 
come to a more accurate conclusion. I am even in- 
clined to think that the most theorising of all the 
philosophers would be startled at his own principles, 
if, in obedience to them, a common man were to start 
up in a crowd and declare that, although he had not 
read as much as Galileo and Newton, he was by nature 
as clever as either of them, and was quite as worthy 
of respect for his talents as any man that ever lived. 
The person who made such a declaration would be for- 
tunate if he, escaped being charged as a lunatic ; and 
yet he would be as wise as Helvetius, who maintained 
"that foxes hunt because they have learned hunting 
from their parents ; birds sing and build nests in con- 
sequence of instruction; and man becomes man by 
education."— (/S^z^r^Aam.) The disciples of Helvetius 
may consider him an eminent philosopher ; but I 
would ask them, in the language of Quintilian, "if 
precepts could produce eloquence, who would not be 
eloquent ? " 

"Were animals susceptible of change from every 
impression, and not endowed with determinate 



296 PHEENOLOGY. 

natures," asks Dr Spurzheim, *^how comes it that 
every species always preserves tlie same character? 
Why do not fowls coo when they are reared with 
pigeons ? Why do not female nightingales sing like 
males ? Why do birds of one kind, hatched by those of 
another, display the habits and instincts of their 
parents ? Why does the duck, hatched by a hen, run 
towards the water ? Why does not the cuckoo sing 
like the bird that reared it 1 Why do squirrels, when 
pursued, climb trees, and rabbits hide themselves in 
burrows ? The same reasoning applies to man. If 
his faculties be the result of external influences, why 
does he never manifest any other nature but his own ?" 
It would just be as rational to suppose with Anaxagoras 
that man is the most intelligent being because he has 
two hands, as to believe that the special powers which 
are displayed by individuals are the result of education. 
Education will improve the powers which nature has 
bestowed, but it cannot produce them. "The poet is 
born, not made." **The ox," says Gall, "will never 
learn to run after mice, nor the cat to browse on grass ; 
and we shall never teach the roe-buck and the pigeon 
to hunt." 

Allan Cunningham, in his British Painters, says, in 
reference to that distinguished, but woefully neglected 
landscape painter, Eichard Wilson, " His love of art 
appeared early. How this came upon him in a place 
where there were no paintings to awaken his emotions, 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN 1 297 

we are not informed ; but a slight cause will arouse a 
strong natural spirit." Further, lie says that Benjamin 
West, at the age of seven years, drew an accurate like- 
ness of his little sister with red and black ink, and this 
is the more remarkable as " there were neither profes- 
sors, paintings, nor prints amongst the primitives of 
Pennsylvania." And again, he tells us that '^ George 
Morland, at four, five, and six years of age, made draw- 
ings worthy of ranking him among the common race 
of students. The praise bestowed on these by the 
Society of Artists, to whom they were exhibited, and 
the money which collectors were willing to pay for the 
works of this new wonder, induced his father to urge 
him onwards in his studies — and his progress was 
rapid." Now, it surely does not require any argument 
from me to prove that these, and all similar cases of 
the early development of genius, under such unfavour- 
able circumstances, must be accounted for by the sup- 
position of a great natural talent, rather than by any- 
thing favourable, which there was not, in their original 
position and education. 

Yaucanson, when a child, saw a clock in the ante- 
chamber of his mother's confessor. He immediately 
examined the clock, and made a similar machine with- 
out any other instrument than a bad knife. He after- 
wards constructed an automaton flute-player and other 
astonishing instruments. Now, what was the cause of 
this display of early genius ? Was it owing to a won- 



298 PHRENOLOGY. 

derful natural talent, or was it the result, as Helvetius 
would say, of the attention he bestowed on the object 
which happened to attract his notice ? How does it 
come that the sight of a clock' has not produced a 
multitude of Vaucansons ? How did the clock attract 
his attention more than the attention of other people ? 
If these things are not the result of natural genius, 
how does it come, as Gall has well remarked, that the 
monkey is attentive to a nut, whilst he disregards jour 
lectures on neatness and decency ? and who will in- 
spire tho horse with attention for the monuments 
which we erect to glory and immortality ? or the ram 
for our arts and sciences ? 

It has been well remarked by Fontenelle, that 
^'^ Heroes of all classes come ready formed from the 
hands of nature, and with uncontrollable qualities." 
They not only succeed when circumstances are in their 
favour, but they rise victorious over every obstacle, 
and amidst the most formidable and apparently in- 
superable difficulties. The Memorials of Early Geniits 
afford numerous illustrations of this fact. Giotto, the 
early Italian painter, was devoid of education and every 
opportunity of advancement up to his sixteenth year. 
He was a poor shepherd boy ; but still his genius dis- 
played itself. He was one day discovered by the painter, 
Giovanni Cimabue, in the act of drawing on a stone, by 
means of a pointed piece of stone, a picture of one of 
the sheep he was tending. The representation was so 



IS THE BRAII^ A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 299 

remarkably correct, that Cimabue took him and edu- 
cated him as a painter. The uncontrollable power of 
genius, under the most unfavourable circumstances, is 
well marked in the case of George Stephenson. Helve • 
tins would have found some trouble in discovering the 
opportunities afforded by his lot. No man could 
account for his advancement on any other principle 
than that of an all-powerful natural talent. The cir- 
cumstances in which he was placed, instead of being in 
his favour, were directly against him. He commenced 
life by working for twopence per day, and learned to 
read at eighteen years of age. He had no money, little 
patronage, a poor education, no scientific books, no 
philosophical instruments, no skilled artisans to assist 
him ; and yet, by the mighty power of his own natural 
genius, he raised himself to the highest pitch of emin- 
ence. He not only invented the safety-lamp, but he 
also invented the Locomotive Steam Engine, and the 
entire of our railway system. He was violently opposed, 
abused, and ridiculed by learned engineers, men of 
science, eminent lawyers, and the Houses of Lords and 
Commons, but still his genius penetrated through all 
the clouds of ignorance, and he came off victorious. 
He had full confidence in the power of truth. He 
knew he was right, and nothing could daunt his courage. 
Such was his confidence in the principle of his safety- 
lamp, that he did not hesitate to try his first experi- 
ment with it in the very centre of the jet of explosive 



300 PHRENOLOGY. . 

gas which was issuing from the roof of the mine at 
Killingworth. If his calculations had been ill-founded 
he must have been immediately blown to atoms. 
Moodie and "Wood accompanied him into the pit, but 
they placed themselves in a safe position, and would 
not approach the spot of danger till the experiment 
was proved to be correct. — {Smiles' s Life of Stephen- 
son.) 

Burns was another example of uncontrollable natural 
talent. At the Centenary meeting in Glasgow, Sir Archi- 
bald Alison said in regard to him, '' This child was des- 
tined to immortality : nature had given him the patent 

of true nobility, the passport to eternal fame 

She gave it to the Bard of Chios, as, a blind and needy 
supplicant, he wandered through the Isles of Greece. 
She gave it to him of the Mantuan lake as he mourned 
the loss of his little freehold under the shadow of his 
wide -spreading beech-trees. She gave it to the Exile 
of Florence as by the waters of the Po he sat down 
and wept. She gave it to the Prisoner of Ferrara as 
in the gloom of his dungeon he mourned a hopeless 
love. She gave it to the Eepublican of England after 
he had, poor and unbefriended, 

*' ' dazzled by excess of light, 



Closed his eyes in endless night.' " 

The natural talent which Garrick possessed for act- 
ing was such that people were often deceived, and 
mistook the acting for reality. This is well illustrated 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 301 

by the following anecdote : — " A grocer in Garrick's 
native town coming to London with a letter of intro- 
duction to the great performer from his brother, Peter 
Garrick, went to the theatre first to see him in the 
character of * Abel Drugger.' Like Partridge, the honest 
grocer was completely taken in by the actor. ^ On 
Garrick's appearance,' it is said, ' he was for some time 
in doubt whether it could be him or not ; at last being 
convinced of it by the people about him, he felt so 
disgusted by the mean appearance and mercenary con- 
duct of the performer (which, by a foolish combination, 
he attached to the man,) that he went out of the town 
without delivering the letter/ It is added that, on 
returning to Litchfield, the grocer was naturally asked 
by Mr Peter Garrick how his brother received him, 
when he was informed, with some hesitation, that the 
letter had never been delivered. ^ To say the truth,' 
observed the ^townsman, ' I saw enough of him on the 
stage to make that unnecessary ; he may be rich, as I 
dare say any man who lives like him must be, but ' — - 
and here the grocer delivered himself of a tremendous 
oath — 'though he is your brother, Mr Garrick, he is 
one of the shabbiest, meanest, most pitiful hounds I 
ever saw in the whole course of my life.' " — {Lawrence^ s 
Life of Fielding.) 

Those who have read the British Workman will re- 
member the story of John the scullion. There were 
no favourable circumstances in his case, but his strong 



302 PHEENOLOGY. 

natural disposition urged him onwards in the road to 
fame. The facts are these : — A small farmer in the 
west of England had seven sons and ^ve daughters, 
who were obliged to work hard for their subsistence. 
They got no education except at the evening class of 
the parish clerk. The fourth son, John, was intensely 
anxious for study. Up to his seventeenth year he 
worked in the fields by day, and wrote, read, and 
counted at night. He had such an insuperable desire 
for the acquisition of knowledge, that he determined to 
make his way to Oxford. He walked the entire way 
from Exeter, sleeping in barns or haystacks, and living 
on bread and water. At last, with his boots worn out 
and his feet sore, he reached the University, and 
actually entered the kitchen of Exeter College, Oxford, 
as a scullion under the cook. Here he worked, and 
employed every idle minute in reading, till at length 
he attracted the notice of those in authority, and then 
was permitted to enter college as a poor student. He 
worked incessantly, and brought himself forward, till 
he was ordained for the church ; and thus John the 
scullion became no less a personage than Dr John 
Prideaux, the learned Bishop of Worcester, and the 
author of some celebrated works. The man who will 
attempt to account for his career by the favourable 
circumstances in which he was placed must have a 
curious obliquity of mental vision. 

A friend of mine, when four years old, heard a per- 



IS THE BKAIN A C0:MP0UXD OEGAN 1 303 

son reading a book which described cream as swimming 
on the milk, and he immediately remarked, " That is 
not correct ; it does not swim on the milk, but it floats 
on it." This boy had a sister who, when three and a 
half years old, got a fashion of tickling her sister in 
the morning for amusement. On coming down stairs 
one morning, her papa observed that he '* heard her 
tickhng her sister this morning;^' but she at once 
replied, '^ No, no, papa, you heard me laughing, but 
you could not hear me tickling ! '' These remarks are 
well worthy of observation, as they show a very early, 
and entirely natm-al, power of critical accuracy which 
is by no means common. 

On what principles other than those I am advo- 
cating, could we account for the wonderful powei-s 
exhibited by individuals from time to time in the 
history of the world ? For example, as already men- 
tioned, George Bidder, the son of a labouring peasant 
in Devonshire, when only twelve years old, was asked 
on the Stock Exchange, " If the pendulum of a clock 
vibrates the distance of nine inches and three quarters 
in a second of time, how many inches will it vibrate in 
the course of seven years, fourteen days, two hours, 
one minute, and fifty-six seconds ; each year of three 
hundred and sixty-five days, five hours, forty-eight 
minutes, and fifty-five seconds 1 and he replied, after 
only one minute's consideration, Two thousand one 
hundred and sixty-five millions, six hundred and 



304 PHRENOLOGY, 

twenty-five thousand, seven hundred and forty-four 
inches and three quarters." — {Anecdotes of Providence.) 
Let those who deny my principles try if they can train 
themselves to compete with George Bidder. I will 
venture to say that the question he answered in one 
minute on his tongue, will take them some hours to 
count with the pen. Again, Herr Paulsen played, at 
one time, ten games of chess with players of reputa- 
tion at Manchester. He did his work without ever look- 
ing at the boards, and that too although the games had 
been adjourned from the previous day. Of the ten 
games, only one was lost by Herr Paulsen, one was not 
played out, three were drawn, and five won. — {BelVs 
Life.) We have a similar instance in the case of Paul 
Morphy. On the 13th of April 1859, he played with 
eight members of the London Club, blindfolded and in 
a separate room. The eight games were played at the 
same time. The moves were called out by a person 
appointed, and others took them down on paper. He 
never took more than five minutes for any move. At 
the end of seven hours two games were won by him, 
and the other six were drawn games. He never made 
a mistake ; never called an impossible move ; and never 
forgot the position of the humblest pawn. — {BelVs 
Life) I have heard Master Willie Pape playing two 
tunes, in admirable style, on the piano at one time. 
This certainly is a remarkable power, and exhibits 
duality of action, I can easily understand the possi- 



IS THE BEAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 305 

bility of explaining the extraordinary and peculiar 
talents of Paulsen, Paul Morphy, and Pape, through 
the instrumentality of a complex brain ; but I cannot 
understand how it can all be placed in the mind, and 
yet permit the mind to be simple. A simultaneous 
complex action is perfectly compatible with the nature 
of a complex organ, but utterly inconsistent with the 
idea of a single organ. Phrenology can easily account 
for it. Metaphysics never. At any rate, these parties 
possessed peculiar powers : and if any man were to 
tell me that they had no natural talent, but that all 
resulted from mere training and favourable circum- 
stances, I would just set him down as being equally 
senseless as the lawyer who, on taunting Lord St 
Leonards (Sir Edward Sugden) for being the son of a 
barber, got the very appropriate reply, — ^' Yes, I am ; 
and if you had been the son of a barber, you would 
still have been using the razor ! " 

Dr Livingston, the celebrated African traveller, was 
the son of poor parents. He was obhged to work in a 
factory from six in the morning till eight at night, but 
still his desire for knowledge was such that he con- 
stantly placed a book before him on the spinning 
jenny, and thus read through it sentence by sentence. 
By these means, and by sitting up at night after the 
hours of work, he contrived to obtain a good funda- 
mental education as a preparation for college. After 
entering college, he continued his cotton-spinning 



306 PHRENOLOGY. 

labours, and thus was enabled to support himself 
throughout his entire collegiate course. — {Livingstones 
Travels.) If Dr Livingston had been depending on 
Helvetius' theory of favourable circumstances, instead 
of on the powers of his own natural and uncontrollable 
genius, he would have been on the spinning jenny 
still. The power was there, and it burst through 
every obstacle. He has the high honour of being 
included in the band of men who, notwithstanding 
their low birth, have produced some of the greatest 
events in the world. Think of George Whitfield, the 
boot-cleaner ; of Franklin, the printer ; of Virgil, the 
son of a potter ; of Luther, the son of a miner ; of 
Zuinglius, the son of a shepherd ; of Columbus, the 
son of a weaver ; of Milton, the scrivener ; of Lin- 
naeus, the shoemaker ; of John Hunter, the son of a 
carpenter; of Melanchthon ; of Shakespeare; of Burns; 
of Socrates, Theophrastes, Pythagoras, and Demos- 
thenes ! Such examples, as Dr Gall observes, " refute 
Hobbes, who held that the difference of talents, or of 
mental faculties, comes from wealth, power, and the 
condition in which one is born. .... Almost all great 
men have either been educated by inferior masters, 
or have received no education whatever. Homer, 
Petrarch, Tasso, Dante, Eaphael, Michael Angelo, Ka- 
cine, Moliere, Corneiile, Titian, Eubens, and Poussin, 
are instances." 

That talent is natural, rather than acquired, is 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 307 

further proved by the examples we have of early genius. 
Michael Angelo exhibited his powers at the age of thir- 
teen, and took to painting, although most violently 
opposed by his father for thinking of such a mean 
occupation, as the old man foolishly imagined. Blaise 
Pascal was a proficient in drawing geometrical figures, 
without any instructions, in his tenth year, and " when 
only sixteen he produced his famous paper upon conic 
sections, in which all that Apollonius of Perga had 
established in this branch of geometry, and whereon 
the fame of the successor to Archimedes chiefly rests, 
was deduced from one single proposition, illustrated by 
four hundred corollaries ; and this without the aid of 
the algebraic formula which Descartes subsequently 
elaborated for the simplification of mathematical calcu- 
lations." — [Life^ by Eussell). Mozart wrote ^' a concerto 
for the harpsicord," with perfect accuracy when only 
six years old. Sir Thomas Lawrence drew portraits in 
his sixth year, with great fidelity to nature. And 
Wilkie was able to draw before he was able to write, 
and whether at school or at church, spent his time in 
drawing all sorts of sketches on desks, doors, walls, and 
books. 

Were it necessary to say anything more on the point 
under consideration, I might refer to the tinker, Bunyan, 
who wrote the " Pilgrim's Progress ; '^ to the cobbler, 
William Carey, who could speak in forty languages ; to 
the blacksmith, Elihu Burritt, who acquired a thorough 



308 PHRENOLOGY. 

knowledge of fifty-six languages while working at his 
anvil ; and to many others of a like description ; but 
I think enough has been said to overturn the theory of 
Dugald Stewart, who maintained that " a genius for 
poetry, for painting, for music, or for mathematics is 
gradually formed by particular habits of study or of 
business ; " and that " invention in the arts and 
sciences is the result of acquired habits, aided by favour- 
able circumstances, and not the original gift of nature." 
When the great Dr Johnson said he " could not 
understand how a man could apply to one thing and 
not to another," he was fairly answered by Eobertson 
and Boswell. "One man," said Dr Eobertson, "had 
more judgment, another more imagination.'^ "No, 
sir," replied Johnson, " it is only one man has more 
mind than another. He may direct it differently ; he 
may, by accident, see the success of one kind of study, 
and take a desire to excel in it. I am persuaded that 
had Sir Isaac Newton applied to poetry, he would have 
made a very fine epic poem. I could as easily apply to 
law as to tragic poetry.^' " Yet, sir,'^ said Boswell, " you 
did apply to tragic poetry, not to law." " Because, sir," 
rejoined Johnson, " I had not money to study law. 
Sir, the man who has vigour may walk to the east just 
as well as to the west, if he happens to turn his head 
that way." " But, sir," replied Boswell, " 'tis like walk- 
ing up and down a hill ; one man will naturally do the 
one better than the other. A hare will run up a hill 



IS THE BRAIN A COMPOUND ORGAN ? 309 

best, from her forelegs being short ; a dog down." — 
[Tour to the Hebrides) 

Having established that the brain is the organ 
through which the mind operates ; that in place of 
being single, it is composed of a number or congeries 
of organs, and that the mind can manifest itself 
through these organs, either separately or conjointly — 
that is, through one or a number of the organs at a 
time — I have put my readers in possession of a simple, 
easy, and satisfactory method of accounting for the 
phenomena of dreaming, of partial idiocy, of partial 
insanity, of partial memory, and of partial genius, all of 
which are a complete mystery in the writings of those 
philosophers who treat of the mind as if it had little 
or no connexion with the body during its manifesta- 
tions. I must now proceed to the consideration of a 
number of things which influence the state of the 
brain, and which it is absolutely necessary to be well 
acquainted with, before a person can become a practical 
Phrenologist. To prepare my readers for the practical 
application of the science, is the object which I wish 
to keep constantly before my mind, as I care little for 
the theories of any man if his system is not capable of 
being turned to some practical advantage. 



310 PHRENOLOGY. 



INFLUENCE OF AGE. 



Infancy, youth, and old age, exercise an important 
influence on the state of the brain, Magendie, who 
was a great Physiologist, but an opponent of Phren- 
ology, tells us that the brain, at an early period, " is 
almost liquid ; it is still more firm in infancy, and still 
more in manhood." In infancy and childhood, the 
brain, in common with all other parts of the body, 
is more active and more susceptible of impressions, 
but by no means capable of the same amount of vigour 
and continuity of exertion as in manhood. This fact 
should be kept always in view by those individuals 
to whom the very important trust is committed of 
educating the young and rising generation. Those 
who despise or neglect it are apt to overwork the brains 
of children, and thereby induce disease, which carries 
to a premature grave those parties who were the most 
highly gifted by the Creator, because they are by far 
the most excitable and precocious. If a child be dull 
its brain may be so lethargic that it will bear a little 
pushing without getting over-excited ; but if it be very 
clever, it should be kept back rather than pushed. 
'^ I beseech parents," says Dr Brigham of America, 
^'to pause before they attempt to make prodigies of 
their own children. Though they may not destroy them 
by the measures they adopt to effect this purpose, yet 



INFLUENCE OF AGE. 311 

they will surely enfeeble their bodies, and greatly dis- 
pose them to nervous affections. Early mental excite» 
ment will serve only to bring forth beautiful, but pre- 
mature flowers, which are destined soon to wither 
away, without producing fruit." " Till a child attains 
the age of seven," observes Dr Macnish, " his education 
should be chiefly, if not entirely, physical and moral. 
Let him ramble about, and thus strcDgthen his frame, 
and let him be taught to abhor lying, thieving, tale- 
bearing, oppression, cruelty, gluttony, and every kind 
of vice. When the weather admits of it, children 
should be very much in the open air. Laughter, 
shouting, and innocent mirth should never be checked, 
but rather encouraged. They are the grand safety- 
valves for the superabundant exuberances of the young 
spirit ; yet some parents have the incalculable folly to 
close these outlets of joy, and interdict, as much as 
possible, every expression of vivacity in their children. 
The young creatures are prohibited from laughing and 
talking in their presence, obliged to sit stock-still like 
so many waxen images, and compelled to smother the 
glorious, and alas ! too brief, impulses of childhood in 
the stagnation of silence." I have ever regarded the 
repression of hilarity and innocent amusements in 
children as a piece of extraordinary barbarity, which 
could be equalled only by that of chastising a stupid 
child for not getting a lesson which it was incapable 
of learning. It is a melancholy reflection, but it is 



312 PHRENOLOGY. 

nevertheless true, that an overwhelming majority of 
the human raoe, in civilised countries, have that 
portion of their life which was intended by the Author 
of nature for the most perfect enjoyment, turned into 
a period of misery. " Man's inhumanity to man makes 
countless thousands mourn.^^ The beasts of the field 
treat their young with a degree of kindness far sur- 
passing that which is evinced by their more barbarous 
neighbours of the human race. 

" Every one," says Dr Stokes, " is familiar with the 
fact, that when a man arrives at an extreme age, he 
generally experiences a marked decay of intellectual 
power, and falls into a state of second childhood. Does 
pathology throw any light upon this circumstance 1 It 
does. From a series of ingenious and accurate inves- 
tigations conducted by two continental pathologists, 
Cauzevielh and Desmoulins, it has been found that a 
kind of atrophy of the brain takes place in very old 
persons. According to the researches of Desmoulins, 
it appears that, in persons who have passed the age of 
seventy, the specific gravity of the brain becomes 
from a twentieth to a fifteenth less than that of the 
adult. It has also been proved that this atrophy of 
the brain is connected with old age, and not, as it 
might be thought, with general emaciation of the 
body ; for in cases of chronic emaciation from disease 
in adults, the brain is the last part which is found to 
atrophy ; and it has been suggested that this may ex- 



INFLUENCE OF AGE. 313 

'plain the continuance of mental powers, during the 
ravages of chronic disease ; and also the nervous irri- 
tability of patients after acute diseases, in which 
emaciation has taken place." — (RyainJs Journal for 1834, 
vol. V. p. 647.) In old age, the impressions are slight, 
and soon vanish away. There is a much better recol- 
lection of things which happened in youth than of the 
occurrences of the last week or year. The brain may 
possess activity and sprightliness for a short time, but 
it will require frequent intervals of repose. Dr Board- 
man informs us that Dr Priestley, the celebrated che- 
mist, who in the noontide of life could maintain great 
mental exertion, as it is called, for a number of hours 
in succession, began, towards the latter part of his life, 
to experience that he was allied to the dust. He was 
able to converse, for a short period, with the freshness 
and vivacity of youth, but he soon became exhausted 
and fell over asleep. Now, the question very naturally 
suggests itself. Was this change in Dr Priestley's power 
of thinking in his mind or in his brain % If metaphy- 
sicians like Lord Jeffrey are correct in saying that 
" there is not the smallest reason for supposing that the 
mind ever operates through the agency of any material 
organs, except in its perception of material objects, or 
in the spontaneous movements of the body which it 
inhabits," the defects in the power of thought in Dr 
Priestley's case must have been in his mind ; and con- 
sequently his mind must have been material and mortal. 



314 , PHRENOLOGY. 

But the Phrenologist escapes the dreadful conse- 
quences of this opinion, as he places the defect in the 
brain, and not in the mind. The brain, being matter, 
is liable to fatigue ; but the mind, being spirit, is in- 
capable of weariness, and requires not repose. The 
Phrenological idea on this point is not only consistent 
with sound divinity, but it is also in the most perfect 
accordance with the pathological cases referred to by 
Dr Stokes, as having been observed by Cauzevielh and 
Desmoulins. According to their researches, the appa- 
rent decay of the mental powers is owing to the 
atrophy of the brain which occurs in old age. Cor- 
rect views regarding mind and matter would have pre- 
vented Dr Tilt from stating " that the muscles are not 
capable of obeying volition, and when they are not ex- 
ercised, the loss of jpower is in the mind^ and a forcible 
impression on the patient's mind is the heroic remedy." 
— (Tilt on the Diseases of Women, 2d Ed. p. 106.) Lan- 
guage, such as is used by Dr Tilt, may not, perhaps, be 
intended to convey that the mind is diseased ; it may 
be used in a loose sense, and in accordance with popu- 
lar prejudice, but still it is more or less objectionable, 
as it is grounded on principles which involve the ma- 
teriality and mortality of the soul. 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 315 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 

The absolute size of the brain, and the relative size 
of the different organs of which it is composed, are 
matters of the greatest importance, and, therefore, I 
must beg special attention to this part of my subject. 
When I speak of the absolute size of the brain, I mean 
the size of the whole brain as one mass ; and when I 
speak of the relative size of the organs, or of the 
regions, I mean the size which one organ, or one region 
of the brain, bears in comparison with, or in relation 
to, another organ, or region of the brain. In looking at 
a head, it is necessary to form an estimate not only of 
the size of the entire mass of brain, but also to observe 
the proportion which the different compartments, such 
as the back, the front, the top, and the base bear to 
each other, as well as the proportion which each indi- 
vidual organ bears to those which are connected with it 
in function, or which are opposed to it in action. This 
is all very important, because, other things being equal, 
size is a direct measure of power, though not of acti- 
vity. For example, if we take two individuals of the 
same temperament, age, education, and health, the one 
having a large, and the other a small brain, we will find 
much more powerful manifestations of mind, be they 
good or bad, in connexion with the large than with the 
small brain. In judging of power, however, all the 



316 PHRENOLOGY. 

things which I have mentioned must be equal in the 
instances of comparison. We cannot, strictly speak- 
ing, compare the human brain with that of the inferior 
animals in such a way as to arrive at unerring conclu- 
sions on all points, because their constitutions are not 
alike ; but we can always compare, with a tolerable 
amount of precision, an individual out of any class of 
animals with another belonging to the same tribe or 
family. 

It now devolves on me to prove that a connexion 
exists between the size of an organ and the power 
which that organ is capable of manifesting. This is 
a fundamental, and therefore a most important point. 
The brain is a component part of our system, and, in 
so far as power is concerned, it must be under the 
general laws of our vitality. The size of an organ, or 
part, both in man and the inferior animals, bears a 
direct correspondence with the amount of duty it is 
intended to perform. Thus, in the case of any indivi- 
dual, a large bone or muscle is stronger than a small 
one. In man, the bones and muscles of the legs, which 
are obliged to support the weight of, and move, the 
whole body, are much thicker and stronger than the 
same parts in the arms, and consequently the arms are 
less capable of powerful exertion than the legs. But 
the case is reversed in the swallow : its wings have far 
more power than its legs, and therefore the strongest 
muscles are attached to its winofs. As Sir Charles 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 317 

Bell, in his work on The Hand^ has observed," The 
pectoral muscle (the muscle which moves the wing) 
constitutes the greater part of the bulk of the body. 
Borelli makes the pectoral muscle of a bird exceed in 
weight all the other muscles taken together, whilst he 
calculates that in man the pectoral muscles are but a 
seventieth part of the mass of muscles. And here we 
perceive the correspondence between the strength of 
this muscle and the rate of flying of the swallow, which 
is a mile in a minute, for ten hours every day, or six 
hundred miles a-day." So far as muscle is concerned, 
then, size is a measure of power. How is it with ner- 
vous matter ? The greater its volume, other things 
being equal, the greater its power. 

In his hot haste to overthrow Phrenology, Dr Eoget 
has made some observations, already referred to, which 
tend to show that he was as ignorant on some points 
in Physiology as he was of Phrenology. '^It requires 
no extensive knowledge of the animal economy," says 
he, " to perceive that modifications of functions, 
equally diversified with those of the intellect, are, in 
many cases, the result of actions taking place in the 

same organ Xerves perform the double office 

of volition and sensation ; but the difierent bundles of 
fibres which convey each impression, the one to the 
muscles, the other to the sensorium, are wrapped up 
in the same sheath, and are so intimately intermixed 
during their course as to constitute a single cord 



318 PHRENOLOGY. 

. Guided by sucli analogies as these, might we not be 
equally justified in concluding that the same part of 
the brain may serve for the memory of words as for 
the memory of things ? " It is indisputable from the 
wording of this extract, as well as from the whole 
tenor of the argument in the context in which it 
occurs, that Dr Eoget alleged it as a fact that a nerve 
of volition and sensation — a spinal nerve — was a single 
organ performing a double function. This is the only 
view in which his reasoning could bear on the ques- 
tion in dispute. It may be quite possible that Dr 
Eoget was perfectly honest in the use of this argument 
when he first published it in the Encyclopoedia Brit- 
annica, because that may have occurred before the 
physiological discoveries regarding the true nature of 
these nerves were made. But no such excuse can be 
made for him in reiterating these arguments in the 
Treatise on Physiology and Phreriology, from which I 
am now quoting, which was published in 1838. At 
the seventy-first page of the first volume he says : 
" We have here reprinted the essay on this subject 
which originally appeared under the head of Cranio- 
scopy in the Supplement to the sixth edition of the 
Encydopcedia Britannica, We have done so because 
we have not seen any reason to alter our views." 
Now, I would like to know how he can pretend to be 
honest in repeating in this new, revised, and enlarged 
edition, an argument against Phrenology which he 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 319 

knew to be false. At the period of this pubHcation, 
1838, the true nature of the spinal nerves was known 
to every medical student in the world, and could not 
possibly have been unknown to a writer on, and Pro- 
fessor of. Physiology, hke Dr Roget. He must have 
known that Dr Spurzheim, so early as the year 1815, 
had published it as his opinion that a spinal nerve 
consisted of two sets of fibres, each set performing a 
different function, and also that Sir Charles Bell and 
Magendie proved by their experiments, in and after 
the year 1821, that the views which Prochaska and 
Spurzheim had surmised were perfectly correct. I say 
he must have known this when he reiterated the 
argument against Phrenology. But I shall now follow 
the example of the man who swore to the age of a 
horse " on the best authority in the world, for he had 
it out of his own mouth." I shall prove out of Dr 
Eoget's own mouth that he knew the fact which he 
reiterates to be untrue. When arguing against Phreno- 
logy in the first volume, he tells us the spinal nerve is 
a single organ performing a double function ; but 
when Phrenology is forgotten, and Physiology is the 
subject, he informs us, in the second volume, p. 144, 
that " the observations which first suggested the idea 
of there being two sets of nervous filaments, the one 
subservient to sensation and the other to volition, 
were those in which a limb was only partially paralysed, 
the power of motion being retained, while that of 



320 PHRENOLOGY. 

feeling was lost Erasistratus and Herophilus 

had long ago taught the doctrine of there being two 
species of nerves, respectively appropriated to these 
opposite functions, and Galen was inclined to the same 

opinion But it is to Sir Charles Bell and to 

Magendie that the merit belongs of bringing forward 
decisive 'proofs of the reality of this distinction be- 
tween nerves for sensation and nerves for motion, the 
idea having before been only loosely thrown out by 
speculative physiologists as a plausible conjecture. It 
results from this discovery that the transmission of 
impressions in opposite directions is effected by dif- 
ferent nerves, or at least by different sets of nervous 
filamentSy and that no filament is caioahle of transmitting 
impressions hoth ways indiscriminately, but always in 
one particular direction. These two kinds of filaments 
are, it is true^ conjoined together in one nerve, hut the 
object of this union is not community of function, hut 
convenience of distribution, the two kinds of filaments 
still remaining distinct in their functions as they are 
likewise distinct in their origin^'' &c., &c. What do 
you think of this, my reader ? We learn that in early 
ages the disciples of Galen, on seeing his anatomical 
theories overturned by dissections, chose to affirm 
that the human body had undergone a permanent 
change in its structure, rather than admit that Galen 
could be wrong ; but Dr Eoget far outstrips them all, 
because he can show that the very same nerve is in 



SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 321 

different conditions at the very same time, in accord- 
ance with the mere wishes of the person who is 
observing it. If it is to be used against Phrenology, 
it becomes a single nerve performing a double func- 
tion ; but if it is to be used in favour of Physiology, 
it is so very complaisant that it at once becomes a 
double nerve, performing a double function. Is it not 
distressing to have to deal with such a class of oppo- 
nents ? What can we expect from the lower grade, 
when we find the author of one of the " Bridgewater 
Treatises " resorting to such subterfuges ? It is posi- 
tively disgusting to find a man like Dr Eoget repeating 
an argument against Phrenology at the very time that 
he knows that the alleged fact which he founds his 
argument upon is utterly false. The man who can do 
this is unworthy of confidence on any subject. People 
talk about men of eminence not being converted to 
the side of Phrenology ; but I tell them that men of 
Dr Roget^s class, who endeavour to overturn a system 
by an argument which they know to be false, would 
not " be persuaded though one rose from the dead." 
So far from proving against Phrenology, when viewed 
in the light of advanced Physiology, the case of the 
nerve is entirely in its favour. Every nerve which 
performs a double function is now proved to be a 
double nerve, and this is an analogical argument in 
favour of the brain being a complex organ, seeing that 
it performs such a variety of functions. 



322 PHRENOLOGY. 

The observations of eminent physiologists have 
demonstrated that there are two sorts of nerves, the 
one connected with motion, and the other with sensa- 
tion. In some instances, these are distributed separ- 
ately ; but in other cases they run in the same sheath, 
and thus, to a superficial observer, might appear to be 
one in their nature. They are so thoroughly distinct, 
however, that the one cannot perform the duties of the 
other. A nerve of sensation cannot produce motion, 
nor can a nerve of motion produce sensation. Each 
fulfils its own office. Now, we always find that the size 
of the one or the other of these nerves varies according 
as the power of motion or sensation predominates. 
For instance, the single nerve of feeling in the ele- 
phant's trunk is thicker than all the nerves of motion 
which are distributed on the same part ; and I am sure 
my readers are aware of the extreme sensibility which 
the trunk of this animal possesses. The power of 
feeling, in this case, is in exact accordance with the 
great size of the nerve of sensation with which the 
organ is supplied ; and here, size is a measure of 
power. 

The olfactory nerve, which is distributed over the 
Schneiderian membrane of the nose for the purpose of 
enabling us to smell, is spread over a surface of only 
twenty square inches in man, whereas in the seal it 
covers one hundred and twenty square inches ; and the 
power of smelling in the seal is so much greater than 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 323 

that possessed by human beings that the hunters are 
always obliged to approach him directly against the 
wind, otherwise he would recognise them by the smell. 
The parts of the nose on which the convolutions of 
the Schneiderian membrane are folded, are small in 
the greyhound when compared with the beagle or blood- 
hound, as any person may know who will look at the 
thickness of the nose in these animals, and their power 
of smell is in accordance with the development of their 
organs. The greyhound, in pursuit of his game, is 
guided by sight ; the beagle, or bloodhound, by smell. 
Here again, size is a measure of power. 

At the 77th page of his large work on Physiology, 
Dr Bostock says, '' The apparatus of nerves which is 
sent to the muscles is very considerable ; and especi- 
ally to those which are under the control of the will, 
being greater in proportion to their size than to any 
other part of the body, except the organs of the senses. 
. . . The nerves of the voluntary muscles are so much 
more numerous than those of the viscera, that, accord- 
ing to the remark of Haller, the nerves that go to the 
thumb are more in quantity than those that supply 
the whole substance of the liver." Here Dr Bostock 
very emphatically recognises the connexion of size and 
power in the nerves. The thumb has a great power 
both of motion and sensation, and it is, for these pur- 
poses, largely supplied with nerves ; but the liver is 
very scantily supplied with nerves, although it is a very 



324 PHRENOLOGY, 

large organ^ and the consequence is, it is devoid of 
motion and has very httle feeling. Do these facts not 
prove the connexion between the size and power of the 
nerves? And is it not remarkable that while Dr 
Bostock recognises this in one part of his book, he 
overlooks it altogether in another part of the same 
volume, where he undertakes to refute Phrenology ? 
In his Physiological part he supports the principle ; in 
his Phrenological he attempts to overthrow it ! This 
should be a warning to ail men not to permit their 
judgment to be overcome by their prejudices on any 
subject. If Dr Bostock's opinions were all correct, 
they would square with themselves, as truth can never 
contradict truth. 

Let us now pay attention to what Dr Bostock says at 
the 785th page of the same volume from which I took 
the last quotation. " The position," he remarks, " that 
the size of an organ is an indication of the degree of 
its power or capacity, a position which may be regarded 
as almost the fundamental principle on which the 
whole doctrine (of Phrenology) rests, is in direct con- 
tradiction to fact. To revert to the case of the eye : 
it may be asserted. that the perfection of this organ, 
either when considered with respect to the different 
species of animals, or to the different individuals of 
the same species, does not bear the least relation to 
its size, but depends entirely upon the nature of its 
organization, and, except in those cases where the 



SIZE^ POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 325 

exercise of an organ is connected with mechanical 
force, as in muscular contraction, bulk has no relation 
to the perfection of a part." Nothing could surprise 
m6 more than to find that a man of Dr Bostock's per- 
spicacity could have fallen into so egregious an error in 
reference to the eye. He seems to have entirely con- 
founded the functions performed by the different 
parts of which the eye is composed. He mistakes the 
use of the whole eye for the use of the optic nerve, 
which is only a part of the eye, and such a mistake is 
unpardonable in a writer on Physiology. If a Phreno- 
logist were to blunder in such a way, we would never 
hear the end of it ; it would be trumpeted over the 
length and breadth of the world. Did any man ever 
imagine that the power of sight depended on the size 
of the whole eye ? 'No. The man who could imagine 
such a thing would be as ignorant as a Hottentot of the 
nature of the eye. But if the power of sight does not 
depend upon the size of the whole eye, it is inseparably 
connected with the size of one part of the eye, namely, 
the optic nerve, which Dr Bostock should know is the 
real and essential organ of vision. Whilst, as Mr 
Combe has pointed out, the cow is furnished with a 
large eye, for the purpose of taking in a tolerably exten- 
sive surface of the ground, clothed in verdure, which 
immediately surrounds her, her optic nerve, or the 
nerve which serves for conveying the impressions of 
external objects from the eye to the brain, is small ; so 



326 PHRENOLOGY. 

that here we have a large eye adapted for gathering 
the rays of light from an extensive and nearly approxi- 
mated surface, but there is a small nerve, and the 
animal is consequently prevented from enjoying power- 
ful sight, and she is not able to see anything at a great 
distance. On the other hand, in the eagle, the eye is 
small because it does not require to take a view of 
objects in its immediate vicinity in the same way as 
the cow, but its optic nerve is remarkably large, and 
this renders the power of its sight proverbial. It is 
the size of its optic nerve which enables it, from the 
towering height to which it has soared, to discover its 
prey on the surface of the far distant earth. Desmou- 
lins, a great French Physiologist, but not a Phrenolo- 
gist, says, in the screech-owl, whose sight is defective, 
the parts from which the optic nerves arise are not 
more than one-twentieth part of the mass of the brain ; 
whereas, in the eagle, who is proverbial for sight, the 
same parts are about one-third of the entire brain. 
The optic nerves are in the same proportion. The 
same author tells us that in order to increase the surface 
of the retina, which is the expansion of the optic nerve, 
or the real organ of vision, it is thrown into folds in 
eagles, vultures, and falcons, and these folds hang loose 
in the eye ; but such a state of matters does not occur 
in animals of ordinary sight. Is it not evident from 
these facts that size is a measure of power ? Is it not 
evident from these facts that Dr Bostock has fallen 



SIZE, POWER^ AND ACTIVITY. 327 

into a gross mistake — a mistake so egregious that it 
could be accounted for only by the blindness pro- 
duced by his overwhelming anxiety to overturn 
Phrenology ? 

The Fhrenological Journal for 1825 contains the 
report of an interesting case which came under the 
observation of Surgeon Hood of Kilmarnock. The 
patient had been blind in the left eye for twelve or 
fourteen years, and it was found, on dissection after 
death, that the optic nerve belonging to that eye 
^' was nearly one-half smaller than the corresponding 
nerve on the opposite side." Here the diminution in 
size was connected with loss of power. The depend- 
ence of power upon size in development is also demon- 
strated by the following remarks of Professor Tied- 
emann : — " The remarkable and regularly disposed 
enlargements • observed immediately behind the cere- 
bellum in the flying-fish,^' says he, " are the origins of 
the nerves destined to the digitiform prolongations 
peculiar to these fishes, observed in front of the ven- 
tral fins, and provided with numerous muscles, serving 
at the same time as organs of touch and progression. 
We find also in the torpedo two large ganglia, situated 
also behind the cerebellum, the size of which they 
much surpass, and from whence issue the nerves 
analogous to the eighth pair, which furnish a great 
number of branches to the electrical organs of these 
fishes. The other species of the skate, properly 



328 PHRENOLOGY. 

called, present but a very small swelling, giving origin 
to the eighth pair, which, in these animals, are only 
distributed to the gills. In the sheaf-fish, the origin of 
the fifth pair of nerves forms a very voluminous mass, 
because this pair sends large branches to the long bar- 
bules which cover the superior maxilla, and to the 
muscles 'of these appendages/'— (Solly on TJie Brain^ 
p. 23.) In these instances, we find there is a large 
development in connexion with the manifestation of 
special powers ; and when these powers are wanting, 
or the nervQS supply some minor organ, the develop- 
ment is in accordance with the function. 

Examples might be multiplied to any extent, but I 
think I have given a sufficient number of instances in 
reference to the bones and muscles, as well as in con- 
nexion with the nerves, which are so closely allied in 
their nature to the brain, to prove that there is a 
direct correspondence between the size of an organ, 
and the power which it is enabled to manifest. Surely, 
then, it is not unreasonable to expect, what observa- 
tion directly proves, that the brain does not stand out 
as an exception to all the ordinary laws of the rest of 
the nervous system, — that system of which it forms 
such an important part. '' Thab a brain," says Dr 
Carpenter, " which is greatly under the average size, is 
incapable of performing its proper functions, and that 
the possessor of it must necessarily be more or less 
idiotic, there can be no reasonable doubt. On the 



SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 329 

other hand, that a large well-developed brain is found 
to exist in persons who have made themselves conspicu- 
ous in the world by their attainments or their achieve- 
ments, is, I think, a proposition of equal generality.'^ — 
{Medical Gazette, Sept. 1841.) As in the nerve, so in the 
brain, its size is a measure of its power. At the meet- 
ing of the British Association, 1862, Professor Owen 
contrasted the gorilla with man in regard to the devel- 
opment of the brain. " The sudden advance," says he, 
'^ of so supremely important an organ as the brain, in 
the human race, and the marked hiatus between that 
highest grade of its structure and the next step below, 
attained by the orangs, chimpanzees, and gorillas, is 
one of the most extraordinary in the whole range of 
comparative anatomy. It is associated with the in- 
tellectual capacities, the power of framing general pro- 
positions, and of expressing thought in articulate 
speech." Sir J. Y. Simpson of Edinburgh accounts 
for the great difference which is observed between 
the white and black races of the human family, in 
regard to parturition, on the principle that increased 
power of thought is connected with increased size of 
brain. " The severity of pain," says he, '' could, I 
think, be easily proved to be the result of civilisation, 
and, as I believe, of that increased size of the infan- 
tile head which results from civilisation." — {Obstetric 
Works, vol. ii. p. 698.) A gradual increase, as the re- 
sult of a progressive civilisation, in the use of the 



330 PHRENOLOaY. 

brain would add, within certain limits, to its develop- 
ment and power, and this continued over successive 
generations would ultimately, in accordance with a 
well-known law of the animal economy, produce an 
increase in the size of the brain of the offspringc 
Here, again, size and power go hand in hand. All 
other things, such as temperament, health, and exer- 
cise, being equal, the size of the brain invariably gives 
us a direct measure of its power. Not so, however, as 
to its activity. 

It has been asserted by Lord Jeffrey and others that 
it is a ridiculous makeshift of Phrenologists to draw 
a distinction between the power of an organ and its 
activity ; and Sir William Hamilton calls it '' a base- 
less distinction between activity and power."- — {Phren, 
Jour., 1828, p. 3.) I confess I am surprised beyond 
measure that Lord Jeffrey and Sir William Hamilton 
could so far forget themselves as to deny that there 
is a distinction between power and activity. The 
simplest schoolboy would be ashamed to father such 
opinions. It is truly astonishing how far opposition 
to truth will drive some men. What are we to think 
of the individual who does not know that a person 
may be a powerfully strong man and yet have little 
activity ? Where is the man who could equal the 
nimbleness and activity of the child, and yet the load 
he could easily carry would crush it to the earth ? 
The child has the activity, although it wants the 



SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 331 

power. Again, the legs of a man are much more 
powerful than his lingers ; but I would like to see 
with what activity the legs could be run over the 
strings of a fiddle. When will men, calling them- 
selves philosophers, cease to reason themselves out of 
their common sense ? It is really painful to be obliged 
to reply to such frivolous opponents. ^' In physics 
power is quite distinguishable from activity. The 
balance-wheel of a watch moves with much rapidity, 
but so slight is its impetus that a hair would suffice 
to stop it. The beam of a steam engine traverses 
slowly and ponderously through space, but its power 
is prodigiously great. In muscular action these quali- 
ties are recognised as different with equal facility. 
The greyhound bounds over hill and dale with ani- 
mated agility, but a slight obstacle would counter- 
balance his momentum and arrest his progress. The 
elephant, on the other hand, rolls slowly and heavily 
along, but the impetus of his motion would sweep 
away an impediment sufficient to resist fifty grey- 
hounds at the summit of their speed." — {Phren, Jour,j 
1824.) To enter minutely into a formal proof of the 
reality of a distinction between power and activity 
would be an insult to the understanding of my readers, 
and therefore I revert to the question of size and 
power. 

'^ The doctrine that size is a measure of power," says 
Mr Combe, '^ is not to be held as implying that much 



332 PHRENOLOGY. 

power is the only, or even the most valuable, quality 
which a mind in all circumstances can possess. To 
drag artillery over a mountain, or a ponderous waggon 
through the streets of London, we would prefer an 
elephant or a horse of great size and muscular power, 
while for graceful motion, agility, and nimbleness, we 
would select an Arabian palfrey. In like manner, to 
lead men in gigantic and difficult enterprises — to com- 
mand by native greatness in perilous times, when law 
is trampled under foot — to call forth the energies of a 
people, and direct them against a tyrant at home or 
an alliance of tyrants abroad — to stamp the impress 
of a single mind upon a nation — to infuse strength 
into thoughts and depth into feelings, which shall 
command the homage of enlightened men in every 
age — in short, to be a Bruce, Bonaparte, Luther, Knox, 
Demosthenes, Shakespeare, Milton, or Cromwell, a 
large brain is indispensably requisite ; but to display 
skill, enterprise, and fidelity in the various professions 
of civil life — to cultivate with success the less arduous 
branches of philosophy — to excel in acuteness, taste, 
and felicity of expression — to acquire extensive erudi- 
tion and refined manners — a brain of moderate size is 
perhaps more suitable than one that is very large, for 
wherever the energy is intense, it is rare that delicacy, 
refinement, and taste are present in an equal degree." 
Mr Combe has very properly referred to the fact 
that fifty thousand British soldiers are able to keep 



SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 333 

one hundred millions of the Hindoos in subjection, as= 
a proof that size is a measure of power. This is the 
only principle on which such a fact could be accounted 
for. The power which the large British brain exercises 
over the very small Hindoo brain is truly surprising, 
when a person comes to examine it carefully. — (Com- 
pare Plate of Hindoo head with Plate of Napoleon's 
forehead.) We have seen a thorough illustration of it 
during the late lamentable Indian rebellion. Havelock, 
on his way to the relief of Lucknow, with his intrepid 
band of only one thousand men, defeated, in the open 
field, no less than twenty thousand of the enemy ; and, 
although the city of Lucknow had ^'a population of 
about three hundred thousand, wild and lawless in the 
last degree — every man armed in some way or other, 
he actually succeeded in fighting his road to the Kesi- 
dency, and ha'd the inexpressible satisfaction of rescu- 
ing that " illustrious band of not five hundred men 
which held its own against at least fifty thousand, 
without losing a foot of ground, or conceding to the 
enemy a single success." — {Life of Havelock.) Again, 
in the battle of Assaye, Wellington commanded only 
eight thousand men in all. Of these only fifteen 
hundred were native British. He had just seventeen 
cannon and sixteen hundred horses. With this small, 
but intrepid band, he attacked and utterly defeated, in 
the open field, an army consisting of thirty thousand 
cavalry, and twenty thousand infantry, with one 



f 



334 PHRENOLOGY. 

hundred cannon in their front. — (Life of Wellington.) 
It would be difficult to imagine greater victories than 
these. How are they to be accounted for ? I freely 
admit that Havelock and Wellington were as consum- 
mate generals, and as gallant soldiers, as ever drew a 
sword, and also that their faithful bands were com- 
posed of warriors of the first water ; that they could 
accomplish anything which was in the power of hu- 
manity to perform ; but still their victories could not 
be accounted for on any other than Phrenological 
principles. They could have fought their way against 
any reasonable odds, but the extremely overpowering 
numbers by which they were opposed must have 
proved fatal to their success, if the enemy had been 
endowed with the same brain power as other equally 
civilised tribes of the human race. Perhaps an expla- 
nation may be sought in the Hindoo's want of civilisa- 
tion, and in his ignorance of the superior method of 
fighting possessed by the British soldier. This expla- 
nation, however, will not sufiice. The North American 
Indians, who know nothing of civilisation, have never 
been subdued ; they may have been driven back into 
the forest, or numbers of them may have been extir- 
pated from the face of the earth, but they have never 
yet been conquered. The Caribs and the New Hol- 
landers, in vfhom the animal propensities are largely 
developed (see Plates), are exactly in the same pre- 
dicament. Slay them you may, but conquer them 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 335 

you cannot. This cannot be owing to their high de- 
gree of civilisation, because it does not exist. " The 
aborigines of xlustralia/' says Dr Lang, *^ have no idea 
of a Supreme Divinity, the Creator and Governor of 
the world, the Witness of their actions, and their 
future Judge. They have no objects of worship, even 
of a subordinate or inferior rank. They have no idols, 
no temples, no sacrifices. In short, they have nothing 
whatever of the character of religion or of religious 
observance to distinguish them from the beasts that 
perish." And Sir Walter Scott informs us that, " The 
natives of New Holland are in the very lowest scale 
of humanity, and ignorant of every art which can add 
comfort or decency to human life. These unfortunate 
savages use no clothes, construct no cabins or huts, 
and are ignorant even of the manner of chasing ani- 
mals or catching fish, unless such of the latter as are 
left by the tide, or which are found on the rocks. 
They feed on the most disgusting substances, snakes, 
worms, maggots, and whatever trash falls in their 
way. They know, indeed, how to kindle a fire ; in that 
respect only they have stepped beyond the deepest 
ignorance to which man can be subjected." Civilisa- 
tion, then, will not explain the condition of the North 
American Indians, the Caribs, or the New Hollanders, 
because they do not possess it. Neither will the 
absence of civilisation account for the defeat and sub- 
jugation of the Hindoos, because they are so far ad- 



336 PHRENOLOGY. 

vanced as to have a written language and systems of 
law and religion ; and we are told that the heroic gar- 
rison of the Lucknow Eesidency was surrounded by 
^' malignant and well-trained marksmen, who thirsted 
like tigers for their prey."— (Z^/*? of Sir H, HavelocJc.) 
The mode of accounting for their defeat and complete 
subjugation, then, by a want of civilisation, or by their 
ignorance of the proper method of fighting, will not 
stand the test. I feel certain, however, that the 
PhreDoiogical doctrine which asserts that the absolute 
size of the brain is a direct measure of its power, will 
enable us to give a satisfactory explanation upon every 
point. In the North American Indian and the Carib, 
the head is not only absolutely large, but it is specially 
so in the region of the animal propensities when com- 
pared with the reflecting organs ; hence the impossi- 
bility of complete subjugation. On the other hand, of 
all the tribes which have yet been discovered, there is 
none in whom the head is absolutely so small, or the 
fighting propensities so poorly developed, as in the 
Hindoo (see Plate 6), and as a consequence of this, the 
general force of character will be feeble, and complete 
subjugation a matter of easy accomplishment. 

There never was an instance of a man with a very 
small head being able to subject nations and drive 
consternation to the heart of almost every inhabitant 
of the globe in the same way as did Alexander the 
Great or Napoleon Bonaparte, nor yet to sway and 



SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 337 

control tlie opinions of the multitude, and wield the 
destinies of a mighty empire, in the same manner as 
did Daniel O'Connell and Sir Robert Peel. If such 
ever existed, let our opponents point out the case. 
They could have no difficulty whatever in doing this 
if power of character depended alone, as the meta- 
physicians would have us believe, on the state of the 
mind, and • had no relation to the development of the 
brain. If the anti-phrenologists were correct, a brain 
the size of an infant's would be quite as good as the 
sixty-four ounce mass which filled Baron Cuvier's skull, 
and a man with " a forehead villanously low " might 
be as benevolent as a Howard, or as great a general as 
the illustrious Wellington. On this point, however, 
the facts are all in favour of the Phrenologists, and 
against the Jeffreys and the Rogets. A person with a 
moderately-sized brain may be acute in all his percep- 
tions, and remarkably clever as a critic and a scholar, 
but he will never have the same general force of char- 
acter as if his brain were large. Absolute size gives 
power, but the relation which the size of one part of 
the brain bears to that of another will alone determine 
whether the power be good or bad. " We see," says 
Gall, " that in their works which conform to the indi- 
cations of nature, artists make large heads, and espe- 
cially large foreheads, to denote energetic intellectual 
qualities ; and they give small and depressed foreheads, 
and a head very strong in the posterior parts, to in- 



338 PHRENOLOGY. 

dividuals who distinguish themselves only by qualities 
of an inferior order. The ancients gave to the statues 
of their priests and their philosophers much larger 
foreheads than to those of their gladiators. Eemark, 
especiallyj the distinction they have adopted in their 
Jupiter of the Capitol. The form of no head has ever 
been so strongly prominent in the anterior and supe- 
rior part of the forehead. What a difference between 
this and the head of Bacchus ! . . . A man who really 
merits the title of great, but only in a single relation, 
will not always have a vast, extended, voluminous 
head, because he is not endowed with great and ex- 
tended faculties. The greatest mechanician or archi- 
tectj the greatest musician, the first painter, &c., may 
excel in his art without the whole brain participating 
in the great development of one or some few of its 
parts." A large general development will give general 
power, but a large development in one compartment, 
when compared with the remainder, will give power 
in the special department to which the development 
belongs ; so that, view it as we will, size is a direct 
measure of power. 

Further, a brain measuring only from eleven to 
thirteen inches in circumference, immediately above 
the ear, and from seven to eight inches over the top of 
the head from the nose backwards, is invariably accom- 
panied by idiocy* " The perfect exercise of the facul- 
ties," says Gall, ^^is absolutely incompatible with a 



SIZE, POWEE, AND ACTIVITY. 339 

brain so small, and there always exists in such a case 
idiocy more or less complete : to this rule no excep- 
tion has been or ever will be found. Why then shall 
we not render homage to truth ? Why not establish 
it as a principle, that there does exist a direct re- 
lation between imbecility and the mass of the brain 1 " 
This is a very tangible point. If there be no truth in 
Phrenology, how does it come that a brain, with the 
dimensions stated, is invariably accompanied by 
idiocy? If there be no relation between size and 
power, how is it to be accounted for that a head of 
this description is never found on the philosopher, the 
statesman, or the general? If it be true, as Lord 
Jeffrey asserts, that it is a " strange attempt (on the 
part of the Phrenologist) to assign material organs for 
such purely mental operations as have no immediate 
reference to nlatter," how does it happen that a brain 
of idiotic measurement has never been found on any 
of the metaphysicians who have spent the greater part 
of their lives in reflecting on things which relate to 
spirit ? On Lord Jeffrey's principle, a brain the size of 
an orange would be quite sufficient for them. If Dr 
Koget be correct in asserting '' that there is not a single 
part of the encephalon (the brain), which has not, in 
one case or other, been impaired, destroyed, or found 
defective, without any apparent change in the sensi- 
tive, intellectual, or moral faculties," it must folio % 
not only that an idiotic brain would do for a Socrates, 



340 PHRENOLOGY. 

a Haller, or a Stephenson, but also that a man should 
be able to think at the rate of nine knots an hour 
without a brain at all. The truth is, Lord Jeffrey's and 
Dr Roget's nonsense may do for men in their study, 
but the man of practical sense will at once recognise as 
idiotic the brain which I have described.- — {See Plate of 
idiot) The man who is guided by observation, rather 
than wild theory, knows that size and power are 
connected with each other. Dr Gall's assertion regard- 
ing the idiot's head has been^efore the public for more 
than half a century, and yet none of his opponents 
have ever been able to produce one single example to 
refute it. They have had the length and breadth 
of the world before them, and ample time and oppor- 
tunity, but still the thing is not accomplished. If any 
man produces me a living, full-grown individual, pos- 
sessing the talent of a George Stephenson, a Welling- 
ton, a Bonaparte, or a Peel, whilst the head measures 
only eleven inches in its greatest circumference, and 
seven over the top from the root of the nose to the 
nape of the neck, I will give him a fifty pound note for 
his trouble, and throw Phrenology overboard into the 
bargain. Here is a fair chance for the anti-phrenolo- 
gist : let him earn my money if he can. One of the 
most startling and humiliating sights which ever cama 
before me, during my professional life, was that of a 
child born without a brain. Its head was perfectly flat 
across by the eyebrows, the root of the ears, and the 



SIZE, POWEE, AND •ACTIVITY. 341 

nape of the neck ; but in all other respects, including 
its face, limbs, and body, it was a remarkably fine 
healthy child. It died in a few moments after its 
birth. The sight of it made an impression on my 
mind which cannot be effaced. No person could look 
on it without forming a very exalted idea of the im- 
portance of the brain in the human economy, and feel- 
ing at the same time, if a parent himself, truly thankful 
that he has never been called on to bear such a trial in 
his own family. It has often occurred to me, since 
witnessing this case, that parties who are dissatisfied 
about having all sons, or all daughters, are guilty of a 
great sin. They should feel extremely thankful to 
Providence when their children have " their shapes and 
features." 

It must be specially observed that although want of 
size invariably produces idiocy, it is not the only cause 
of idiocy. A brain may, on the whole, be large, and 
imbecility may result from defective structure, mal- 
formation, or disease. There is often a coarseness of 
structure and a want of energy about a large brain 
which brings its possessor under the class of "big 
head and little wit.'^ Defect in size, then, must not 
be set down as the only cause of idiocy. Idiocy may 
result from original malformation or disease. Dr 
Mitchell, deputy-commissioner in Lunacy for Scotland, 
has lately dravv^n our attention to the fact that injuries 
inflicted on the brain during birth are frequently the 



342 PHRENOLOGY. 

cause of idiocy. In the London Medical Times and 
Gazette, for July 12bh, 1862, he has given us a report of 
his elaborate investigations on this point ; and after 
having perused it, I can see no reason to doubt the 
correctness of his conclusion, " that tedious labours 
and instrumental deliveries do frequently injure the 
child in such a manner as to lead to the manifestation 
of idiocy. As to this/' he continues, " no doubt what- 
ever rests on my mind." 

It is a common, but an exceedingly erroneous 
opinion, that the size of a man's head may be estimated 
by the size of his hat. A person may have very large 
moral and reflecting organs, and yet wear a moderate 
sized hat. The part of the head on which the hat 
rests is the seat of the animal propensities, of which 
he need not be too proud. Those who have Phreno- 
logical busts will see a good illustration of this point 
in contrasting the wonderfully towering cast of Sir 
Walter Scott with that of the low, flat, broad-headed 
murderer, Templeton. — {See Plates), 

For practical purposes, it is necessary that we should 
have a standard by which to judge of the size of any 
individual's head, so as to know whether it is large or 
small. The average, or standard, head is usually set 
down by Phrenologists as measuring twenty-two inches 
in circumference, and fourteen inches over the top. 
In taking the circumference, the tape line should be 
placed immediately above the root of the ear, and 



SIZE, POWER, AND ACTIVITY. 343 

passed round the head on a level with, and round the 
eyebrows. This gives the circumference of the base 
of the brain. The measurement over the top is taken 
by some parties from the root of the nose to the 
protuberance on the skull at the top of the neck, and 
by others from the orifice of one ear over the crown of 
the head to the orifice of the other ear. This last plan 
is the one which I would prefer. 

Seeing that the largest head is not always the best, 
it behoves us now to inquire what are the circum- 
stances which modify the effects of size. In laying 
down the rule that size is a direct measure of power. 
Phrenologists have invariably put in the proviso 
that all other things must be equal in the cases of 
comparison. Dr Andrew Combe has very justly com- 
plained, {Phren. Jour., vol. iv. p. 162,) that our oppo- 
nents have never dealt fairly with us on this point. 
They have always " mis-stated or misrepresented its 
meaning. For," he continues, ^' instead of fairly 
grappling with it, as laid down in all the Phreno- 
logical writings, those of our opponents who have 
ever attacked it, and Mr Jeffrey among the number, 
have chosen uniformly to represent it as affirming 
that organic size is the only and exclusive condition of 
energy of function, and have brought wit, fact, and 
argument into .play, to upset, not our statement, but 
this their own absurd misrepresentation." When they 
cannot meet us on fair ground, they try to upset us by 



344 PHKENOLOGY. 

misrepresenting our premises. It is lamentable to 
think how often this plan is had recourse to in con- 
troversy ; and what makes it, perhaps, more distress- 
ing than any other consideration, is the fact that it is 
the dodge — the dodge of misrepresentation — which is 
had recourse to by writers on religious subjects, more 
than by any other class in the community. Any per- 
son who is acquainted with religious controversy must 
be aware of this. An honest writer is obliged to spend 
more time in exposing the disingenuous reasoning and 
misrepresentations of his opponent, than in discussing 
the real merits of the question. It is a great disgrace 
that such a state of matters should exist, and it speaks 
badly for poor human nature. My own impression is 
that the evil will never be remedied till such conduct is 
put on its proper foundation. In place of using such 
mild terms as misunderstanding and misrepresentation, 
ib must just be set down for what it really is in the 
great majority of instances, the dishonest emanation of 
a mind working through a brain in which the organ of 
conscientiousness is decidedly defective. The man 
who is naturally defective in moral rectitude will gain 
a victory at any cost ; but the person who is endowed 
with large conscientiousness, will give his opponent fair 
play, no matter whether he is able to meet his argu- 
ments or not, and he will never demean himself by 
disingenuous reasoning to gain a point. Misrepre- 
sentation is not had recourse to so much in scientific 



TEMPERAMENT. 345 

as in religious discussions, Phrenology alone excepted. 
In speaking of size as a measure of power, Phrenolo- 
gists always put in the proviso, other things being 
equal ; and I now come to consider what those things 
are which must be equal, or, in other words, what the 
circumstances are which modify the effects of size. 
By far the most important of these is the constitution 
of the brain, which is to be known by the tempera- 
ment. 



TEMPERAMENT. 

Evert person understands what is meant by the 
temper. Xot so, however, with the temperament. 
Nor will I attempt any scientific explanation of it at 
present, as I could not do so without occupying a 
great deal of ■ time and space. Besides, it is a very 
difficult thing to obtain an accurate scientific know- 
ledge of the temperaments ; and such knowledge can 
be arrived at only after minute, careful, and extensive 
observation. Indeed, I question whether the subject 
could be fully investigated b}^ parties who are devoid 
of a medical education. An accurate and ready appre- 
ciation of temperament, or, in other words, of consti- 
tution, is just one of those difficult points in which 
one physician often so much surpasses another. Pecu- 
liarities of constitution are not so much to be learned 
from written descriptions, as to be picked up from 



346 PHRENOLOGY. 

practical observation by a person who has a natural 
aptitude for such things. There is a certain amount 
of information, however, concerning the temperaments 
which any man may acquire, and without which it is 
impossible to become a good practical Phrenologist, 
and thus far I must go with the subject. The question 
of the temperaments, be it observed, is not one which 
is confined to the province of the Phrenologist. It has 
engaged the attention of medical observers ever since 
the days of Hippocrates. The cause of the tempera- 
ments has given rise to a diversity of opinion in 
different ages, and even yet is not very satisfactorily 
ascertained ; but their effects have been recognised with 
a considerable degree of uniformity by all observers. 

The temperaments are usually divided into four — 
the nervous, bilious, sanguine, and lymphatic. They 
are never found absolutely pure and unmixed, but are 
combined in different proportions in different cases, 
and the preponderance of one or more over the re- 
mainder will always determine the peculiarity of the 
individual constitution under consideration. This rule 
is applicable to man and all the inferior animals. 
There may be a difference of opinion as to which is 
cause and which effect ; but there can be no question 
that an intimate relationship exists between the tem- 
perament and the minute anatomical structure of 
every part of the body, including bone, muscle, sinew, 
and nerve. If activity prevails, the structure will be 



TEMPEEAMENT. 347 

fine and compact; if sluggishness predominates, tlie 
texture will be coarse, open, and in some instances 
spongy. That such a difference exists in regard to 
muscle or flesh can be verified any day in a butcher's 
shop by comparing the fine texture of the active 
Galloway or Kerry cow with the coarse fibre of the 
sluggish short-horned ox ; and that the bone even is 
not exempt from the rule can be made manifest by 
contrasting the shank of a Clydesdale horse with the 
same part in the racer. In short, every part of the 
body participates in the same law of development. I 
have already observed, in my work on The Horse, that 
the doctrine of the temperaments is applicable to the 
inferior animals as well as to man. Form and size 
alone will not account for the difference which exists 
between the Clydesdale, Suffolk, or Belgian cart-horse 
and the Engli-sh race-horse : temperament must be 
taken largely into our calculation. It is on the same 
principle, too, I think, we must explain some of the 
facts connected with insect life. I know of no other 
rational explanation of the following facts : — " M. De- 
lisle once observed a fly, only as large as a grain of 
sand, which ran three inches in half a second, and in 
that space made the enormous number of five hundred 
and forty steps. If a man were to be able to walk as 
fast, in proportion to his size, supposing his step to 
measure two feet, he would in the course of a minute* 
have run upwards of twenty miles, a task far surpassing 



348 PHRENOLOGY. 

our express railroad eDgines, or the famous 'Seven- 
League Boots ' recorded in the nursery fable. In leap- 
ing, also, insects far excel man, or any other animal 
whatsoever. The flea can leap two hundred times its 
own length ; so also can the locust. If a man were six 
feet high, and could leap in proportion to one of these 
insects, he might stand near Bow Church, in Cheap- 
side, leap up into the air over the top of St PauFs 
cross, and alight at the bottom of Ludgate Hill ; which, 
would be something more wonderful than it has ever 
entered into the minds of the writers of fairy tales to 
conceive." 

The individual in whom the brain, spinal marrow, 
and nerves predominate over the rest of the system, 
has a nervous temperament, which is usually indicated 
by fine, thin hair, thin skin, small muscles, paleness 
of complexion, and frequently an irritable disposition, 
which induces bad health. This temperament confers 
great quickness and vivacity of mental action, without 
the capability of endurance. The brain is so remark- 
ably active that it is very easily excited, and, for the 
want of endurance, soon exhausts its powers. It is 
highly important that parties with this temperament 
should avoid all sorts of excess. If the lower faculties 
should happen to predominate in the individual over 
the higher, he will speedily run, if exposed to tempta- 
tion, into drunkenness or debauchery, and he will 
spend what is called a merry life and a short one. 



TEMPEEAMENT. 349 

His nervous system is too excitable to be able to en- 
dure, and when accustomed to excess it gets beyond 
control. A drunkard of this description is in a very 
bojjeless condition. The great point lies in prevention 
by way of teetotalism. His motto should be. Touch 
not, taste not, handle not. If once excited, it is not 
easy to stop. The power of control is lost. Accord- 
ing to my observation, there is less hope for reclaim- 
ing a drunkard who possesses this temperament, even 
although his higher faculties may be well developed, 
than one who runs to excess from a large gustative- 
ness with a sluggish temperament. In the first case, 
the excitement is excessive, arid raises a' brain-power 
for the time being which gives a sort of pleasurable 
sensation, and which is not easily controlled ; but in 
the last case the stimulant has very little more action 
than it would have on a sand-bed. The craving is not 
so great if the party is removed out of the way of 
temptation. Sir John Sinclair has very properly re- 
marked that '^ it is of the highest importance to pay 
particular attention to one's temperament and consti- 
tutional weaknesses." This is specially so for the man 
who, with a nervous predominance, is obliged to de- 
vote his life to literary pursuits. If he does not 
moderate, as well as regulate, his mental work, and 
interlard it with plenty of exercise in the open air, he 
will wear out his constitution, and pass into a prema- 
ture grave. It is perhaps in some degree owing to the 



350 PHRENOLOGY. 

neglect of those rules wMcli promote a healthy and 
vigorous action in the constitution that literary men 
are seldom succeeded by an offspring equal to them- 
selves. They have worked an excitable brain at the 
expense of their general constitution, and the conse- 
quence is, they have bequeathed to society a delicate 
and useless offspring, if indeed there be any offspring 
at all. This I believe is the rational solution of the 
following facts, which are set forth in an early number 
of the Quarterly Revieio : — " It is a fact,'' says the 
Review^ " that men distinguished for extraordinary 
intellectual power of any sort very rarely leave more 
than a very brief line of progeny behind them — men 
of imaginative genius, we might say, almost never. 
With two exceptions, there is no real English poet 
prior to the middle of the eighteenth century, of whose 
blood we have any inheritance amongst us. Chaucer's 
only son died childless. Shakespeare's line expired in 
his daughter's only daughter. None of the other 
dramatists of that age left any progeny — nor Ealeigh, 
nor Bacon, nor Cowley, nor Butler. The granddaughter 
of Milton was the last of his blood. Newton, Locke, 
Pope, Swift, Arbuthnot, Hume, Gibbon, Cowper, Gray, 
Walpole, Cavendish, never married. Neither Boling- 
broke, nor Addison, nor Warburton, nor Johnson, nor 
Burke, nor Goldsmith, transmitted their blood.'' Sir 
Humphrey Davy died childless, and Sir Walter Scott 
has only one representative bearing issue. These are 



TEMPERAMENT. Sol 

remarkable facts, but tbey are capable of a perfectly 
pbilosophical solution. If a man wishes to enjoy good 
health to a proper old age, as well as to transmit a 
vigorous progeny, he must attend to the laws which 
govern the healthy energy of every organ in the entire 
economy. He must not work his brain at the expense 
of the rest of his system. 

The bilious temperament is indicated by a pre- 
dominant muscular system, darkish hair, dark or 
yellowish skin, firm frame, hard flesh, and a more or 
less harsh but manly expression of face. This tem- 
perament confers the greatest power of endurance, 
and will enable the brain, as well as all other parts of 
the body, to undergo an immense deal of work without 
much fatigue. It is a most important temperament, 
and is essentially connected with strength, durability, 
and sustained exertion. 

The sanguine temperament, as its name imports, 
has its origin in a large development of the lungs, 
heart, and blood-vessels. It must therefore be evident, 
that it is one of no trifling importance. On it, to a 
considerable extent, depends the nourishment or sup- 
port of all parts of the body. It is recognised by a 
firm, plump, well-defined form, reddish or sandy- 
coloured hair, blue eyes, and a ruddy complexion. In 
this case, there will often be a fondness for exercise or 
field sports, and a perfect antipathy to a state of 
quiescence. Of course the brain will participate in the 



352 PHUENOLOGY. 

general activity of the constitution. The temper is 
frequently so hasty that it boils up into a towering 
passion. 

The lymphatic temperament is supposed to depend 
on a predominance of the glandular and lymphatic 
systems of vessels. It often happens that people 
with this temperament are loaded with fat. They 
have a large abdomen, a round and full form, flabby 
flesh, fairish hair, dull and sleepy-looking eyes, inex- 
pressive, vacant, and waxy countenance. Here we 
have a slow, languid, and sluggish disposition, which is 
extremely unfavourable for either mental or bodily 
exertion. The individual with this temperament is a 
sort of vegetative creature. He is not easily roused to 
exertion, and even, if roused, he will soon sink into a 
lull again. It matters not how favourable the develop- 
ment of his cerebral organs may be, they will be of 
little use, as they will be permitted to lie dormant the 
greater part of their time. In place of being put out 
to usury, they may be said to be buried in sand. 

Such, then, are the leading peculiarities of the four 
temperaments. They are generally mixed and com- 
bined in various proportions in different individuals. 
It is an exceedingly rare occurrence to find a person 
with a perfectly pure temperament. Indeed, I ques- 
tion if such a case is ever seen. At any rate, a well- 
mixed temperament is infinitely preferable to any pure 
one. They should all be found in the same individual, 



TEMPERAMENT. 353 

as they are all of decided use in their own place, but 
the exact proportion which they bear to each other is 
a matter of overwhelming importance. The sanguine 
and lymphatic are both of use in connexion with the 
nutrition of the vital organs, but if these predominate 
very decidedly over the others, the person will be more 
characterised by the animal than the mental power. 
On the other hand, when the nervous and bilious are 
in excess, there may be a delicacy of constitution, 
caused by defective nutrition, which is a great hind- 
rance to steady brain- work. To use a common expres- 
sion, the mind will be too strong for the body. A 
good dash of the nervous and bihous, with a touch of 
the sanguine, and a little of the lymphatic, will make 
an excellent combination. The brain will possess an 
energetic, durable, and healthy action. 

Lord Brougham is usually cited as a good example 
of the effects of a combination of the nervous and 
bilious temperaments. He had both energy and en- 
durance. After being engaged in the law court during 
the day, he went to the House of Commons, where he 
remained till two o^clock in the morning ; on going 
home, he wrote an article for the Edinburgh Review ^ 
after finishing which he returned to the court ; from 
the court he again proceeded to the House of Commons, 
and retired to sleep only on the morning of the third 
day. During all this time his vigour is said to have 
been unabated. No other combination of temperament 



354 PHRENOLOGY. 

would have enabled him to go through the same 
amount of labour without repose. The Eev. Dr Cooke 
of Belfast, and the Eev. Dr Guthrie of Edinburgh, are 
good examples of this combination of the nervous and 
bilious temperaments. 

The nervous in combination with the lymphatic 
temperament will produce activity alternating with 
indolence. In general, the individual will be lazy and in- 
dolent from the lymphatic portion of his temperament, 
but extraordinary circumstances will call forth a con- 
siderable degree of excitement and activity, depending 
on the nervous portion of his temperament. I have 
seen many people with this peculiar combination. 
Some of them had well-formed heads, and were capable 
of great things when roused ; but on the whole they 
did not arrive at much, because they did nothing ex- 
cept under special excitement. I once had a particular 
friend of this description, who might have been called 
a sleeping lion. When excited, he was capable of 
manifesting prodigious power on any subject with 
which he was acquainted ; but his fine development of 
brain was to a considerable extent useless, owing to 
the extreme indolence of his temperament. The 
sluggishness of his constitution prevented him from 
turning the great powers he possessed to their full 
account. 

Whilst the nervous and sanguine temperaments are 
both active, the nervous is more of what is called a 



TEMPERAMENT. 355 

mental, and the sanguine of a physical character. 
" The nervous is a grave and thoughtful temperament ; 
the sanguine is accompanied with an appearance of 
hilarity and hope ; there is a peculiar lighting up of the 
countenance and tendency to motion." The nervous 
predisposes to brain work ; the sanguine to general 
bodily activity. 

The effect of the temperaments did not escape the 
observant eye of William Cobbett. His remarks, 
though not quite accurate, are so uncommonly good 
that I shall transcribe them. In his Letter to a Lover, 
he says, " Who is to tell whether a girl will make an 
industrious woman ? How is the purblind lover, espe- 
cially, to be able to ascertain whether she, whose smiles 
and dimples and bewitching looks have half bereft 
him of his senses — how is he to be able to judge, from 
anything th^t he can see, whether the beloved object 
will be lazy or industrious 1 Why, it is very difficult. 
There are, however, certain outward signs, which, if 
attended to with care, will serve as pretty sure guides. 
And, first, if you find the tongue lazy, you may be 
nearly certain that the hands and feet are the same. 
By laziness of the tongue I do not mean silence ; I do 
not mean an absence of talk, for that is, in most cases, 
very good ; but I mean a slow and soft utterance ; a 
sort of sighing out of the words, instead of speaking 
them ; a sort of letting the sounds fall out, as if the 
party were sick at stomach. The pronunciation of an 



356 PHEENOLOGY. 

industrious person is generally quick and distinct^ and 
the voice, if not strong, j^rm at least. Not masculine, 
as feminine as possible ; not a croak nor a bawl ; but 
a quick, distinct, and sound voice. Another mark of 
industry is a quick step^ and a somewhat heavy tread, 
showing that the foot comes down with a hearty good- 
will. I do not like, and I never liked, your sauntering, 
soft-stepping girls, who move as if they were perfectly 
indifferent as to the result." Such are Mr Cobbett's 
observations, and I believe they are well worthy of 
attentive consideration. 

It is a very prevalent opinion that all parties should 
be able to do with the same amount of sleep. Nothing, 
however, could be farther from the true state of the 
case, and I am convinced that many people injure 
themselves most materially by denying their constitu- 
tions the full amount of sleep which is necessary for 
the proper and regular renewal of their bodily organs. 
"How absurdly do those reason," says Sir John 
Sinclair, " who imagine, that by taking as little sleep 
as possible, they prolong their existence. They may 
spend in a given period, say sixty years, more hours 
with their eyes open, but they will never enjoy life, in 
the proper sense of that word, nor possess that fresh- 
ness and energy of mind, which are the certain conse- 
quences of sound and sufficient sleep. . . . Intense 
thought very speedily exhausts the nervous energy ; 
and it requires even longer sleep to recruit the strength 



TEMPERAMENT. 357 

and restore the spirits when wasted by study, than 
by the effects of severe labour. . . . Let any one 
devote from seven to eight hours to sleep, and from 
three to four to exercise, and even four hours to meals 
and to amusement, and he will be enabled, from the 
refreshment which his body, his mind/ and his spirits 
thus receive, to do a greater quantity of business, and 
to study with more advantage, in the course of twelve 
months, than if he were to labour at his books for ten 
or twelve hours a day. . . . Those who have attempted 
to fix one uniform measure of sleep for all persons, 
have not sufficiently considered how widely different 
the system is in various individuals. Bishop Taylor, for 
instance, has very erroneously assigned only three hours 
in the four-and-twenty, as the general standard ; and 
Baxter is almost equally mistaken in supposing that 
four hours will suffice for any man. Wesley justly 
observes, that whatever may be done by extraordinary 
persons, or in some remarkable cases, where little sleep 
has sufficed, yet the human body can scarcely continue 
in health and vigour without six hours' sleep in the 
four-and-twenty. We should rather be inclined to 
extend it to eight. ... It is proper to add, hovv^ever, 
that nothing is more pernicious than too much sleep. 
It brings on sluggishness, and dulness of all the animal 
functions, and materially tends to weaken the body. 
It blunts and destroys the senses, and renders both 
the body and the mind unfit for action." — {Code of 



358 PHRENOLOGY. 

Health and Longevity.) The truth is, the secret of all 
this lies in the temperaments. Eight hours' sleep 
would be as little for a person possessing a lymphatic 
temperament, as six would be for one of either a ner- 
vous or sanguine temperament. I recollect once seeing 
a large-eating, lymphatic gentleman falling sound asleep, 
and snoring, on a chair in the drawing-room, at a party, 
in the very midst of hilarity. He seemed so unable to 
overcome the sluggishness of his constitution, that he 
forcibly reminded me of the observations of Dr Macnish 
about those " persons who have a disposition to sleep 
on every occasion. They do so at all times, and in all 
places. They sleep after dinner; they sleep in the 
theatre ; they sleep in church. It is the same to them 
in what situation they may be placed ; sleep is the 
great end of their existence — their occupation — their 
sole employment. Let them be placed in almost any 
circumstances, and their constitutional failing prevails. 
It falls upon them in the midst of mirth ; it assails 
them when travelling. Let them sail, or ride, or sit, 
or lie, or walk, sleep overtakes them — binds their 
faculties in torpor, and makes them dead to all that is 
passing around. Such are our dull, heavy-headed, 
drowsy mortals, those sons and daughters of phlegm — 
with passions as inert as a Dutch fog, and intellects as 
sluggish as the movements of the hippopotamus or 
leviathan. ; No class of society is so insufferable as this. 
There is a torpor and obtuseness about their faculties 



TEMPEEAMENT. 359 

which renders them dead to every impression. It is 
not uncommon for persons of this stamp to fall asleep 
in the midst of a party to which they have been invited. 
Llr Mackenzie, in one of his papers, speaks of an honest 
farmer having done so alongside of a young lady, who 
was playing on the harp for his amusement. The cause 
of this constitutional disposition to dose upon every 
occasion seems to be a certain want of activity in the 
brain, the result of which is, that the individual is 
singularly void of fire, energy, and passion. He is of a 
phlegmatic temperament, generally a great eater, and 
very destitute of imagination." — (The Philosopky of 
Sleep.) The proper rule is for every person to take as 
much sleep as will suffice to renew the energy and 
vigour of the constitution ; but no one should indulge 
further than this. The parties who are advocates for 
short sleep frequently tell us of this, that, or the other 
great man who made it a rule never to sleep more than 
four or five hours a night, and they exhort us to follow 
his example ; but they never think of informing us 
that this great man either came to a premature grave, 
or possessed such a temperament as enabled him to 
brave every tempest and surmount every difficulty that 

came in his way. A friend of mine. Major , once 

told me he was " as fresh as any little boy of eighty- 
two could exj3ect to be," and that he " never knew the 
meaning of the word tired." He had a most admirable 
constitution, his bodily organs were well proportioned 



360 PHEENOLOGY. 

to each other, his temperament was very energetic, 
and he took proper care in his mode of living. All 
these combined to make him what he was, a man of 
vigour and energy at an advanced age. All men are not 
so happily constituted ; but if all would regulate their 
passions and emotions, live in moderation, and take 
regular exercise and regular sleep, they would have a 
more reasonable prospect than they now possess of 
enjoying a vigorous youth and a healthy old age. 

The temperament has to do with the minute struc- 
ture of all parts of the body. If it be active, the tex- 
ture of the muscles, bones, &c., will be fine, wiry, and 
compact ; if sluggish, the same parts will be coarse, 
soft, and spongy. This is one essential point of differ- 
ence between the thorough-bred and Clydesdale horse. 
As I have said in my work on The Horse, " the muscle or 
bone of a thorough-bred horse, whose temperament is 
always active, is far stronger, inch for inch, than the 
same part in the Clydesdale horse, whose temperament 
is invariably sluggish. If the Clydesdale, Suffolk, or 
Belgian horse, were as strong as he looks, in comparison 
with the thorough-bred horse, ass, mule, or genet, he 
would be able to carry or draw a vast deal more than 
he has ever been known to do. Let us take two 
animals with exactly the same temperament and the 
same leverage, and we will invariably find that the one 
which has the thickest muscle will have the most 
strength ; but if the muscle and leverage are the same 



TEMPEEAMENT. 361 

in both cases, and the temperament different, there 
will be a corresponding difference in power and ac- 
tivity." So is it with man. Take, for example, four 
men, weighing twelve stone each, with a lymphatic 
temperament, whose muscles are soft and flabby, and 
place them in a boat opposite four antagonists of the 
same weight, practice, and experience, with an ener- 
getic and durable temperament, whose muscles are 
hard, firm, and wiry, and start them over a four-mile 
course, and s^e which will come off victorious. I ven- 
ture to say there would be any odds in favour of the 
latter. Every person who would see them lay their 
shoulders, directed by their solid, firm, and active 
muscles, to the oars, would exclaim. What tight and 
hardy fellows these are — they will be sure to win ! 
And so they would. The weight, training, and judg- 
ment being all the same, the difference in the activity 
of the temperament would make the race equal to a 
walk-over. 

As the brain is no exception to the other organs of 
the economy, this law of the muscular system is per- 
fectly applicable to it. Its power and activity are both 
greatly influenced by the temperament. If we select 
two individuals with the same cerebral development, 
but having different temperaments, the one who has 
the most active temperament will also have the most 
active brain, and consequently must be superior to the 
other in mental manifestation ; so that size alone will 



362 PHEENOLOGY. 

not make the best head. Take two men, however, 
with the same temperament, but with different-sized 
brains, and the one with the largest head will have the 
greatest force of character, be that for good or for 
evil. It behoves us, then, in comparing differeilt in- 
dividuals with each other, to pay as much attention to 
the temperament as to the size of the head. They are 
both equally important. A moderate-sized head with 
an active temperament is better than a large head with 
a sluggish temperament. But if the temperament, 
health, and exercise were the same in both individuals, 
the size of the head would then be a direct measure of 
its power. In drawing comparisons between different 
parties, we must never lose sight of these principles, if 
we wish to avoid falling into the grossest mistakes. 
We must also go a little farther, and apply these prin- 
ciples to the various organs in any specified head. As 
the health and temperament are necessarily equal in 
the same man, the largest organs in his head will, of 
course, be the most powerful, and will be likely to take 
the lead of the rest, so as to form a bold outline in the 
person's character. A large organ will have more 
power than a small one, and will form a trait in the 
natural disposition. "We must first estimate the tem- 
perament, to see whether the brain as a whole will be 
active or sluggish ; we are then to ascertain the size of 
the entire head, to give us an idea of the power of the 
complete mass ; and then we are in a position to com- 



HEALTH OF THE BRAHS-. 363 

pare the various organs witli each other, so as to group 
the large ones together, as the largest organs, having 
the greatest force, owing to the temperament and 
health of all being alike, must determine the pro- 
minent outlines of the person's talents and disposition. 
From this it results, that, whilst the size of the whole 
head is important, the chief point, after all, is the part 
of the head which bears the greatest development. A 
small head with prominent moral and intellectual 
faculties, is decidedly better than a large one in which 
these special parts are defective. A large, good head 
is the best of all ; but a small good one is infinitely 
preferable to a large bad one. 



HEALTH OF THE BRAIN. 

The health of the brain should be another ingredient 
in our estimate of its power. A diseased brain is not 
capable of manifesting the mental operations in the 
same condition as a sound one. It may here be re- 
marked that diseases are usually divided, whether 
wisely or not, into two great classes, — structural and 
functional. The walls of the heart, for example, may 
become thicker or thinner than natural, and the cavity 
of the organ may be lessened or enlarged in conse- 
quence, and this would form an instance of structural 
disease of the heart ; but, on the other hand, derange- 
ment in the nervous system, or in the digestive organs, 



364 PHRENOLOGY. 

might cause a palpitation at the heart, although no 
change, so far at least as to be cognisable by our senses, 
has taken place in the structure of the heart itself, and 
this constitutes what is called functional disease of the 
heart. Hence it follows that the various organs of the 
body may be more or less impeded or altered in their 
action by either structural or functional disease. In 
this point of view, the brain is no exception to the 
rest of the system. Its functions may be lessened or 
increased, as is well known to all properly-informed 
medical practitioners, by the effects of disease, without 
any visible change in the state of its fibres ; or its 
substance may be so far changed by disease that the 
alteration in its structure will be visible by our senses 
on dissection. These are the two great divisions 
adopted by the medical profession, and they answer 
my purpose perfectly well, without going into the 
question as to whether there can be any alteration of 
function unaccompanied by previous alteration in the 
physical condition of the part. It certainly does not 
follow that there is no structural change because we 
have no instrument at present powerful enough to dis- 
cover it. This point should, for the time being, be 
left an open question. All that the Phrenologist has 
to do, is to see that the brain is free from disease either 
functional or structural. If he neglects to do this, or 
if he has not sufficient knowledge to enable him to 
ascertain it, he will be very likely to fall into grievous 



HEALTH OF THE BEAIN. 365 

errors. In addition to ordinary disease, there are some 
cases on record where remarkable alterations had taken 
place during life in the external appearance of the head. 
The observations which have as yet been made on this 
point are not so extensive as could be wished, nor as 
accurate, in general, as they ought to be. Still, they 
are of importance. The Phrenological Journal for 1824 
contains the report of a very interesting case, which 
was referred to in his clinical lectures by the cele- 
brated Esquirol, physician to the Salpetriere, Paris. 
"To-day (7th Feb. 1819) we have the dissection of a 
woman," says Esquirol, "who was admitted into the 
hospital, about four years ago, for a religious melan- 
choly At the time of her admission she had a 

large forehead, so much so that I had a drawing of it 
made as remarkable. JSfow, the forehead is small and 
receding^ " In* this case," says the reporter, " the de- 
crease of the brain and the consequent retrocession of 
the skull were very conspicuous. In the course of four 
years, a forehead, remarkable for its size, had dwindled 
down to one almost characteristic of idiocy." This is a 
well-authenticated case, and it is specially interesting 
on account of having occurred in the practice of an 
eminent physician who was an opponent to Phrenology. 
The Phrenological Journal for 1827, p. 495, and for 
1835, p. 466, contains a most interesting account of 
the changes which occurred, from disease of the brain, 
in the size and shape of the skulls of T D , 



366 PHRENOLOGY. 

and the celebrated Dean Swift. Those who wish to 
peruse it can refer to the Joitrnal, as it is too long to 
be inserted here. 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 

That the human body is improved by regular exer- 
cise, and that any part of it which is left in a state of 
inactivity, such as a fractured leg, will become weak 
and wasted, few will attempt to deny. Take, for ex- 
ample, a man who has spent a number of years behind 
his counter, or in his study, or in any sedentary occu- 
pation, and send him out to a hard day's hunting, or 
coursing, and you will, in all probability, lay him up 
for a week ; whereas the man who is habituated to this 
sort of exercise will be as fresh the next day as ever. 
Regular exercise, at proper intervals, and duly accommo- 
dated to the condition of the part, will invariably in- 
crease its power. Witness its effects, for instance, on 
the carman's legs, the arms and shoulders of the sawyer, 
and the right arm with which the blacksmith wields 
his hammer. All parts of the body are improved by 
proper exercise, and deteriorated if deprived of it. The 
brain forms no exception whatever to this law of the 
animal economy ; and hence it is absolutely necessary 
for the Phrenologist, in estimating character, to ascer- 
tain whether the organs have been cultivated or not. 
This is only fair and reasonable. We could not tell the 



EFFECTS OF EXEKCISE. 367 

power of a man's muscles by measuring his arm, unless 
we knew whether those muscles were exercised or not. 
Why, then, should we be expected to perform greater 
wonders in estimating the power of the brain ? We 
demand fair play, and we must have it. An inch of 
trained muscle is far stronger than an inch of untrained, 
and therefore we could not judge of the power of the 
part without knowing its training. So in regard to the 
brain. Fair play demands that we know whether it has 
been cultivated or not. Suppose I take a block of 
mahogany and cut it into two halves exactly alike ; 
that I leave one half aside, and get a cabinetmaker to 
polish up the other to his highest state of finishing ; 
and that I then place the two pieces together, and 
show them to a person who is ignorant of the effects 
of planing and polishing, he will hardly believe that 
they were originally off the same block. So in regard 
to the brain. If we take two individuals of exactly 
the same dispositions, powers, and talents naturally, 
and leave one of them to bad society and bad example, 
and deprive him altogether of general and religious 
education, whilst we place the other in the most fa- 
vourable circumstances, and give him the best general 
and moral training which our universities and pulpits 
can afford, and then compare the two men together, 
we will hardly be able to imagine that they were ori- 
ginally the same. This shows the importance of attend- 
ing to the training and education which the person has 



368 rHRENOLOGY. 

received whose brain-powers are about to be estimated. 
Let it be observed, however, that, although training 
can improve the powers which already exist, it cannot 
originate them, any more than a man could convert a 
deal board into a mahogany table. The original de- 
velopment must be there. It may be greatly improved 
if there, but if wanting, it cannot be made. The saying 
that "the poet is born, not made," is true in every 
phasis of human existence. 

It may be proper to remark in this place, that the 
Phrenologist does not presume to tell the actions which 
a man has performed, nor predict the conduct that he 
will yet pursue ; but he can discover the motives by 
which he is impelled, and the actions he is most in- 
clined to perform. When our opponents imagine 
Phrenology is called upon to do more than this, they 
merely exhibit the inaccuracy of their own mode of 
thinking, and their utter ignorance of human nature. 
If they had any power of discrimination, they would at 
once see, that men in the world are compelled to con- 
trol their inclinations in various ways, and that their 
actions are not by any means constantly in accordance 
with their wishes — sometimes the very opposite. 
Phrenology discovers the natural talents, dispositions, 
and propensities. It tells what a man is most disposed 
to do ; but not what he will do. '^ If, in social life,'^ 
says Gall, " I perceive in any one the external sign of a 
well-developed organ, I can say with confidence that, 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 369 

in this man, the disposition of the faculty which be- 
longs to this organ is stronger than the disposition 
of his other qualities. But I am ignorant whether 
circumstances have permitted this individual to devote 
himself to the pursuit to which this principal disposi- 
tion would direct him.'^ Professor Ackerman of 
Heidelberg has penned some extremely childish and 
ridiculous observations on this head. ^' As soon as Dr 
Gall shows an organ of theft,'^ he remarks, " the being 
in whom he observes it must be a robber ; and not only 
has an assassin the organ of murder, but whosoever 
has on his cranium the organ of murder must be an 
assassin. If he says that one may have the organ of 
murder without being an assassin, I deny this proposi- 
tion, because no organ can exist without its faculty 
being manifested. . . . Whoever has the organ of 
murder must be an assassin, in the same way as who- 
ever never has committed murder cannot have this 
organ. . . . The organ and the manifestation of the 
faculty belonging to it are the same thing ; without 
exercise no organ can exist, or be produced." This 
statement is extremely unphilosophical. Leaving 
Phrenology entirely out of the question, it shows 
great ignorance of the nature of man and the inferior 
animals. It is in direct opposition to the opinions of 
the physiologists, the metaphysicians, the moralists, 
and the theologians ; and these parties all have as 

much need to meet it as the Phrenologist. It is 

2 A 



370 PHRENOLOGY. 

grounded on the supposition that a propensity cannot 
exist in nature at all without acting in a full and mani- 
fest manner. It confounds the inclination with the 
deed. In replying to it, it is all the same whether we 
suppose the propensities to be in the mind or the body. 
It does not make the slightest difference where they 
are, if they are to be found at all. The question is, If 
a propensity exists in nature, must it always be in 
action ? I say no. Does every man steal who is 
inclined to steal ? Must the being in whom the in- 
clination to theft exists be a robber ? If all those who 
are roguishly inclined were actual manifested robbers, 
the world would be in a sad condition. Does every 
man murder who is disposed to murder ? The fear of 
punishment may deter from the commission of the 
crime, but it will not root out the inclination. Is 
there anything in man's nature which disposes him to 
theft or murder, or does he commit these crimes with- 
out the least disposition to do them ? If he commits 
the deed in consequence of being naturally disposed to 
it, does he continue to perpetrate it, without a mo- 
ment's interruption, throughout life ? or does he, on 
ceasing to perform, lose the portion of his nature 
which disposed him to the act ? This must happen, 
if Professor Ackerman be correct, that the organ and 
the manifestation are the same thing, and that the 
organ ceases to exist when it ceases to act. Let us 
apply these principles to the metaphysical system of 



EFFECTS OF EXEECISE. 371 

philosophyj and then see what will follow. If a faculty 
and the manifestation of it are the same thing, — if it 
cannot exist without acting, — the moment a faculty of 
the mind ceases to act in a manifest manner, that 
moment it is extinguished from the mind and is lost 
to our nature. Extend the rule to all the mental 
faculties, and in the course of twenty-four hours we 
will be left without a mind at all. Professor Acker- 
man, in his hot haste to overthrow Phrenology, seems 
to have forgotten that his principles would overturn 
every system of mental philosophy which allots na- 
tural propensities to a man's nature in any form. If 
the propensity cannot exist without acting, there can 
be no propensity whatever in either man or inferior 
animal, because there is no instance of any man, or 
inferior animal, being under the manifested influence 
of all the prdpensities during every moment of exist- 
ence. On these views, the propensities are all extin- 
guished from nature. If they never exist except when 
in action, they must come and go in a wonderful 
manner. They must be void of any fixed abode. 
They have no real residence in man's nature. Perhaps 
they come from the " vasty deep." Professor Acker- 
man's principles would overturn the natural depravity 
of man, human responsibility, philosophy, and Chris- 
tianity. 

Why does not Professor Ackerman act fairly, and 
bring all the organs of the body to the same test as he 



372 PHEENOLOGY. 

brings the Phrenological? Why does he not give 
Phrenology an honest trial ? Why does he not apply 
his rule to the rest of the body ? If it be true, as he 
asserts, that an organ cannot exist, or be produced, 
without acting — that the organ and the manifestation 
are the same thing — the child must be born without 
eyes, nose, ears, lungs, or stomach. None of these 
have been in action before birth^ and hence, on the 
views promulgated by the Heidelberg professor, they 
cannot have existed. Perhaps he has made the grand 
discovery that they all come into existence, like a flash 
of lightning, at the moment of birth ! How ridiculous 
does this fundamental principle of his appear when 
fully examined ! What will he do with the caged lion 
and the chained hysena ? Their propensity to kill has 
not been permitted to act ; has it ceased to exist ? 
Would he prove the truth of his own theory by walk- 
ing into the cage 1 It is a marvellous blunder to con- 
found, as he and some others have done, the power of 
acting with the action itself. Such blunders may pass 
current when promulgated by those who occupy the 
professor's chair ; but they would be heard of over the 
length and breadth of the land if they were found in 
the writings of a Phrenologist. If the propensities 
cannot exist without acting, there can be no real pro- 
pensity in nature for eating, drinking, theft, murder, 
or sexual desire, because no man is under the influence 
of all these propensities at the same time, and during 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 373 

every moment throughout life from the cradle to the 
grave. If they can exist for an hour, a day, a week, or 
a month, without acting, it is manifest they might 
exist for a longer period. Hence, their temporary ces- 
sation from action is no proof that they have gone out 
of existence, or that they never existed. No man 
could steal and murder without some bodily organs, 
such as hands, feet, or eyes ; but a child would know 
that many men possess these organs who neither steal 
nor murder. The child, I say, would know this ; but 
it is the province of a learned professor, who sits in 
state in his university chair, to make the noble dis- 
covery that no organ can have any existence without 
being in action. Just imagine the state of society we 
would have if these men were correct ! If all men 
were continually performing the deeds which their 
unrestrained natural propensities inclined them to, 
the world we inhabit would be a wonderful place. 
There would be nothing but jarring, confusion, abuse, 
and extermination. Does it follow, I ask, that man 
has no natural propensities because his moral faculties 
may be able to keep them within proper bounds, and 
under proper restraint and control ? If the propensity 
goes out of existence when there is no action, those 
who used to consider that self-denial and the subjec- 
tion of the propensities to the higher faculties under 
the rules of morality and religion, were a virtue, must 
have been under a great mistake. On this new Heidel- 






374 PHUENOLoay. 

berg view, the propensity having ceased to exist, there 
can be no grounds for temptation, no necessity for 
resistance, and no virtue in a control which is only 
visionary. We need never pray to be kept out of 
temptation, as there is no foundation for temptation 
to act on. Such parties would have no more right to 
merit than the eunuch has for resisting a passion 
which he does not possess. In truth, these objections 
of Professor Ackerman, like all the objections which 
have been brought against Phrenology, are so frivolous 
and unphilosophical that it is painful to be obliged to 
reply to them. A child would not produce them. The 
man must be extremely ignorant of his own nature 
who does not feel that he possesses propensities, or 
passions, which he does not let loose. 

Professor Ackerman has started on a mistaken prin- 
ciple in regard to Phrenology itself. He has assumed 
that murder and the organ of destructiveness are equi- 
valent terms, and that the organ of acquisitiveness is 
synonymous with the word theft. This mistake may 
have been excusable in his day ; but no apology for it 
can be received from those who, like the author of the 
article Phrenology in the Popular Encyclopedia^ have 
followed his example, and run blindly in his wake. 
They wrote at a time when the science was far ad- 
vanced, and consequently their statements must be 
put down as pure misrepresentations. It is not my 
intention, however, to dwell on this point here, as it 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 375 

will come up more appropriately under the description 
of these organs and their functions in another place. 

There seem to be three views with regard to an 
organ and the manifestation of its faculty. Ackerman 
holds that an organ and the manifestation of its 
faculty are the same thing. This is simply ridiculous, 
as it confounds the power of acting with the action 
itself. Others, again, believe that the organisation of 
an animal determines its faculties ; and they are right 
thus far, but no further, that the functions manifested 
bear a direct relation to the organisation in existence. 
But there is a third party, with Lamarck at its head, 
which has promulgated most extraordinary opinions. 
According to Lamarck, the bird which seeks its nourish- 
ment in the water, must stretch its toes ; hence, in 
course of time, membranes will extend between them, 
and the web-foot will be perfected, as has been the case 
in the duck. But in the bird that perches on the 
branch, the toes will have the points lengthened and 
hooked, to embrace the twig. The bird which wades, 
as the crane, and which either cannot swim or is un- 
willing to put its body in the water, extends its toes 
to obtain its food ; in time, those feet and limbs will 
elongate, and the body will become mounted on stilts. 
By a similar process of gradual development, the 
ouran-outang has shortened his arms, lost his tail, 
and broadened his feet, and has taken the stature and 
bearing of a human being. " That a man," says Sir 



l iE.., ..!. !. tj™ ?-- ' 



376 PHRENOLOGY. 

Charles Bell, "should have given expression to such 
fancies, in jest, or in mere idleness, or to provoke dis- 
cussion, is probable ; but that he should have published 
them as a serious introduction to a system of natural 
history, is indeed a marvel." Lamarck's opinions are 
apparently so absurd that a person might wonder any 
man could be found capable of believing them, were it 
not that some men, in the present day, who are placed 
in the highest position as scientific instructors, look 
upon man merely as an advanced monkey. The Scrip- 
tures and sound science seem to be thrown overboard, 
in order to favour the theory of gradual and progres- 
sive development, in the earth and all its inhabitants. 
It appears to me a lamentable thing, that the cultiva- 
tion of science has been left almost completely in the 
hands of practical infidels. The fault of this lies en- 
tirely on the true Christian, as he has neglected to do 
his duty in advancing the knowledge of the works of 
God, whilst he is endeavouring to advance the know- 
ledge of His Word. These should both be cultivated 
by the genuine Christian, as they will be certain, when 
properly understood, to go hand in hand. Seeing they 
take their origin from the same Infallible Being, they 
can never contradict each other. " However often,'' 
says my father, " science and letters have been per- 
verted to oppose Christianity and its truths, their 
natural use is to confirm truth of every kind. As 
truth has in all things a real foundation and evid ence 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 377 

it cannot be doubted that light of every kind will be 
favourable to its discovery and proof. The learned 
and the scientific have often used their talents to 
obscure and perplex truth ; but in every instance, as 
far as they have employed their acquirements to sup- 
port their errors, they manifest ignorance. Greater 
learning and sounder science will not only dispel the 
mists of sophistry, but exhibit their object in a stronger 
blaze of light. Truth is burnished by friction ; it is 
only the quackery of science and literature that have 
ever lent their aid to infidelity. Geology has often 
threatened the Mosaic account of creation ; but after 
every successive generation of geologists has proved 
the preceding to be fools, as far as that subject can be 
called a science and not wild theory, its real dis- 
coveries are corroborative of the doctrine of Moses. 
It is only science falsely so called that will ever bear 
against the Bible. Truth and error cannot have equal 
evidence ; as light discovers evidence, it must be de- 
cidedly on the side of the former. The foundation of 
the one is on a rock, that of the other is on the sand ; 
and though the eye sees no difference on the surface, 
learning mines to the bottom, and discovers the reality." 
— {Car son's Works, vol. vi. p. 49.) 

To return from this digression. It must be admitted 
on all hands that the brain not only is the instrument 
of the mind, but also that it is more or less connected 
with the influence which pervades the nervous sys- 



378 PHRENOLOGY. 

tern ; and further, that it is to it the impressions 
which are received through the external senses are 
transferred. Consequently it becomes a matter of the 
greatest importance that we should be accurately ac- 
quainted with the laws which govern this part of the 
animal machine. Its condition is greatly influenced 
by mental exercise ; and hence the overwhelming ne- 
cessity of attending to its state, and acting in obedience 
to its laws, during the education of the young. The 
human brain is capable of bearing with impunity a 
certain amount of exercise and labour, but no more. 
Parents, however, when they send their children to 
school, in many instances seem to forget all this, and 
act as if their unfortunate offspring were made of some- 
thing far more durable than flesh and blood. The 
teachers are sure to be blamed if they cannot, or do 
not, make their pupils old ^men and women, as far 
as learning is concerned, before the age of puberty. 
Now, I look on this as a more barbarous sort of treat- 
ment than a man would give his horse. All know if a 
young horse is overworked he will be injured for life ; 
and for this reason a valuable animal is taken par- 
ticular care of till he arrives at a certain age, and then 
he will bear a great deal of slavery for a number of 
years afterwards. Many people, however, seem, by 
their actions at least, to think that the brain of their 
child is of far less importance than the health of their 
horse. By overworking the brain they lay the founda- 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 379 

tion of disease which leads to a premature grave, or 
else makes the unfortunate creature a more talented 
and important personage at the age of fifteen than he 
will be at the age of fifty. Oh that the time were 
come when the laws of cerebral health, and the educa- 
tion of youth, would be properly understood and duly 
appreciated by every person in the community ; and 
when those individuals to whom the important trust 
involved in youthful training is committed, would be 
amongst the best educated, the best rewarded, and the 
most respected and esteemed in society ! This would 
indeed be a glorious era. The early days of our off- 
spring would be days of joy and rejoicing, owing to the 
pleasant acquisition of knowledge in accordance with 
the rules which God has connected with the natural 
organisation of their brain, in place of being rendered 
miserable, as they are at present, by loading the 
memory, and thereby destroying it, with a thousand 
and one things which are not explained and simplified, 
and therefore cannot be properly understood. People 
may talk as they like about the march of intellect and 
so forth, but I am bold enough to affirm that the 
science of education is one hundred years behind what 
it might be, and what it ought to be, in this great 
empire. 

"In children,'^ says Mr Noble, "the possession of 
the nervous temperament, under the present rage for 
early and strenuous mental excitation, is sometimes 



380 PHRENOLOGY. 

the worst of misfortunes ; since their youthful brains, 
being so readily excited, often afford, in the mistaken 
judgment of their guardians, the highest evidence of 
genius ; and thus the poor victims are goaded on until 
some affection of the exhausted brain or nervous 
system hurries them to the close of their ill-fated 
career, if it do not leave them the prey of some 
serious nervous affection, as epilepsy, hysteria, or even 
downright fatuity. In such cases, however, ill-judging 
and mistaken parents usually console themselves by 
observing that their children were too good for this 
world, or that they themselves were too happy in the 
contemplation of their excellencies, and that calamity 
had befallen the children as a visitation for the sins 
of their forefathers. I am far from disputing the 
verity of the doctrine implied by the last proposition ; 
but an Almighty Providence has given us the capa- 
bility of noting, to a certain extent, the intermediate 
links in the chain of causation, and has permitted us, 
where practicable, to modify their relations ; and 
hence I would exhort every guardian of youth or in- 
fancy to consider well the effects of conduct such as I 
have just mentioned." 

" Infancy," says Bichat, " is the age of sensation. 
As everything is new to the infant, everything attracts 
its eyes, ears, &c. That which to us is an object of 
indifference, is to it a source of pleasure. It is then 
necessary that the nervous cerebral system should 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 381 

be adapted by its early development to the degree 
of action which it is then to have." " But this great 
and early development," observes Dr Brigham of 
America, "very much increases the liability to dis- 
ease ; it gives a tendency to convulsions, and to 
inflammation, and dropsy of the brain, and to other 
diseases of the nervous system, which are most com- 
mon and fatal in childhood. It is, therefore, deeply 
important that the natural action of the nervous 
system should not be too much increased, either by 
too much exercise of the mind, or by too strong ex- 
citement of the feelings, lest, at the same time, the 
liability of children to nervous diseases be increased, 
and such a predominance given to this system as to 
make it always easily excited, and disposed to sympa- 
thise with disorder in any part of the body ; thus gener- 
ating a predisposition to numerous afflicting nervous 
affections. The wonderful powers of mind which an 
infant or child sometimes manifests, and by which he 
surpasses ordinary children, do not arise from better 
capacity in the mind itself of the child, but, in fact, 
from a greater enlargement than usual of some portion 
or the whole of the brain, by which the mind is 
sooner enabled to manifest its powers. This en- 
largement takes place whether the mental precocity 
arises from too early and frequent exercise of the 
mind or from disease, and it must arise in one of 
those ways. But in my opinion, mental precocity is 



382 PHUENOLOGY. 

generally a symptom of disease; and hence those 
who exhibit it very frequently die young. This fact 
ought to be specially remembered by parents, some of 
whom regard precocity, unless accompanied by visible 
disease, as a most gratifying indication, and on ac- 
count of it, task the memory and intellect of the 
child," " George Aspull and the Infant Lyra," remarks 
the philosophic Macnish, "are cases in point. Both 
exhibited, at a very early period, a wonderful genius 
for music : the first performing upon the piano, while 
a mere boy, in a style worthy of Cramer, Kalkbrenner, 
or Moschelles ; and the latter, at an equally early age, 
displaying powers hardly inferior on the harp.. The 
heads of both were unusually large for their age, the 
intellectual compartment of the brain splendid, and 
the organ of tune finely developed. As in the case of 
all prodigies, their brains were overworked, bad health 
ensued, and death was the consequence. . . . The 
gross error committed by parents of overworking the 
brains of their ofispring had its origin in that false 
system of philosophy which has existed from the 
time of Plato till the present day, and by which the 
mind is regarded as a separate entity, having no 
sort of communion with, and b^ing nowise in- 
fluenced by, matter. If Phrenology do nothing else 
than dispel this preposterous idea, it will accomphsh 
much. Had this science been discovered, and its 
principles acted upon, a thousand years ago, what 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 383 

grievous errors in education, what incalculable injury 
to the brain, would have been avoided ! and what a 
mass of splendid talent, which has been employed in 
bootless metaphysical speculations, might have been 
profitably turned into more useful channels! So 
long as people were ignorant of the fact that, in this 
life, the mind works through the agency of material 
organs, no rational views of education, and of the 
true method of preserving the health of the brain, 
could be entertained." 

" The second Septenniad," says Dr James Johnson, 
"introduces us to one of the most important per- 
sonages in this world — a personage whose image is 
never effaced from our memory to the latest day of 
our existence. Who have ever forgotten that happy 
or unhappy epoch of their lives, and that stern arbiter 
of their fate, when they were wont 

' To trace 
The day's disaster in his morning face ' ? 

After the lapse of more than half a century, the 
lineaments of his countenance are as fresh on the 
tablet of my memory as on the first day of their 
impression. The person in question, however, is one 
who is * more sinned against than sinning.' He who 
cultivates the brains of pupils has often a most un- 
grateful task to perform. To hope for a good crop of 
science or literature from some intellects, is about the 
same as to expect olives to thrive on the craggy sum- 



384 PHEENOLOGY. 

mit of Ben Nevis, or the pine-apple to expand amid 
the glaciers of Grindenwalde. Yet, from these sterile 
regions of mind the hapless pedagogue is expected 
by parents to turn out Miltons, Lockes, and Newtons, 
with as much facility as a gardener raises brocoli or 
cauliflowers from the rich alluvial grounds about Ful- 
ham or Eotterdam." 

The brain requires regular intervals of exercise and 
repose. If they are properly proportioned to each 
other, it will improve, within certain limits, in size 
and function ; but if the proportion be badly regu- 
lated, it will be sure to sufiier in an equal ratio. 
And this brings us to an important question in regard 
to the management of a child at school, namely, what 
time should the child be compelled to devote to study ? 
If the parent consults his purse, he will say, work 
close from ten till four, after the present fashion ; 
but if he consults the comfort, health, welfare, and 
advancement of his oflspring in after life, he will 
look to nature, not to fashion or self-interest, and 
say, let the pupil be employed only half an hour, an 
hour, or at most two hours at a time, according to 
age, and let him have regular exercise in the open 
air in the intervals of study. On this plan, the 
bodily health will be kept up, the constitution will 
improve, and the brain will become invigorated. 
There will be no necessity for long and frequent 
vacations. Under the present system of manage- 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 385 

ment, vacations are indispensable. Indeed, it would 
require a very long one to compensate for the loss of 
health usually sustained in consequence of the long 
and close confinement which preceded it. But if 
parents — and they alone are the responsible parties 
— would allow the education of their children to be 
conducted in accordance with the laws of the con- 
stitution, they would find no other vacation necessary 
than the one which will permit the occasional meeting 
of friends or families. The laws of the organisation 
dictate frequent and alternate periods of exercise and 
repose ; and not all work at one time, which makes 
Jack a dull boy, and all idleness at another time, 
which encourages loose habits and an injurious ex- 
cess of exercise. Many a fine boy is lost, or lays the 
seeds of delicacy, by one day's violent exercise after 
a lengthened' period of confinement. His tissues are 
not trained by work, and therefore are too soft to 
stand over-exertion with impunity. 

If we are engaged for a length of time at very close 
study, we get wearied and fatigued. Now, what is the 
cause of this ? Is the weariness in the mind or the 
brain 1 Can we believe that our soul gets tired ? 
Surely not. The immaterial spirit is incapable of 
fatigue. The mind has been using the brain as its in- 
strument of thought, and the brain, not the mind, gets 
wearied or pained. Fatigue is a good criterion by 

which to judge of the proper amount of muscular exer- 

2 B 



386 PHEENOLOGY. 

cise which should be taken ; and the same rule holds 
good in regard to the brain. When pain, dulness, and 
fatigue ensue, the brain should get repose. The in- 
jury consequent on over-exertion takes place in the 
brain, and not in the mind. This is a point I wish to 
impress upon my readers, as it is important both in 
theory and practice. We often hear people speaking 
of parties who have become weak or diseased in the 
mind. Now, with all due consideration, I assert that 
such expressions directly involve the doctrine of 
materialism — a doctrine which is justly chargeable on 
the opponents of Phrenology. Fatigue, growth, and 
disease, are all peculiar to matter ; consequently those 
who attribute them to mind are bound to believe that 
mind is matter. No such things could be attributed 
to an immaterial spirit. The only possible way of 
escaping materialism is to refer, with the Phrenologist, 
such things to the brain itself, which is the material 
instrument of the mind. 

If we have been fortunate enough to be born 
of healthy parents, who have transmitted to us a 
healthy brain, we should make it our business to en- 
deavour to preserve it in that condition ; or if it be 
originally defective, to improve it. For this purpose, 
it is absolutely necessary that it should be supplied 
with healthy bloody — blood formed from a proper 
description of food, and thoroughly purified by con- 
tact wi^^ P^i"^ atmospheric air in the lungs. This 



EFFECTS OF EXEECISE. 387 

purified or arterialised blood will give a healthy 
stimulus to the brain, and increase its ability for the 
performance of all its functions. "Without such 
blood," says Dr Caldwell of America, " not a single 
function belonging to man, whether it be physical, 
intellectual, or moral, can be in unimpaired health and 
perfection ; for, heterodox as the sentiment may 
probably appear to some persons, it is, notwithstand- 
ing, true, that florid, well-vitalised, arterial blood, is as 
necessary to give full vigour to the intellectual and 
moral powers of the philosopher, statesman, and 
patriot, as it is to paint the roses on the virgin's 
cheek, and the coral on her lips." Those of the meta- 
physical school who imagine that the mind can act, in 
this life, independently of the body, should prove the 
truth of their doctrines by facts. If Lord Jeffrey were 
correct in saying that it is a " strange attempt to assign 
material organs for such purely mental operations as 
have no immediate reference to matter," I would like 
to know how it comes that a man is incapacitated for 
deep study — and the deeper the study, the greater his 
incapacity — immediately after eating a very full meal. 
If Lord Jeffrey were correct, a thoroughly hearty dinner 
would not present the slightest impediment to the 
study of metaphysics, or any other subject requiring a 
close process of reflection. Such nonsensical ideas 
may satisfy theorists of the Jeffrey class, but they will 
have no weight with men who exercise their common 



388 PHREN-OLOGY. 

sense. The truth is. Lord Jeffrey's statement is the 
reverse of the fact. The closer the process of reason- 
ing, the more is it affected by the condition of the 
brain. A man may be able, under almost any circum- 
stances, to think of trivial matters which come under 
"•^he cognisance of the external senses ; but if he sits 
down to an abstract process of reasoning, after a very 
full meal, whilst the brain is supplying the stomach 
with nervous influence, he will make little or no pro- 
gress. He will soon get dull and stupid. 

" I have before alluded/' says the Eev. John Barlow, 
" to the notion of some physiologists, that the negro 
formed but the connecting-link between the baboon 
and man. This has been so fully refuted by Professors 
Tiedemann and Owen, that it is needless to go into it 
at length ; but I mention it here to give a further 
instance of the necessity of cultivating the mind, even 
to give the bodily frame its due development, and the 
duty, therefore, which even political economists must 
acknowledge, of bestowing on all the power of doing so. 
Dr Prichard, in his ^ Researches into the Physical His- 
tory of Mankind,' quotes a fearful instance, drawn from 
the early history of Ireland, of the deterioration conse- 
quent on such a degree of poverty and suffering as re- 
duces man to a merely instinctive existence. ' On the 
plantation of Ulster,' says he, ^ and afterwards on the 
successes of the British against the rebels of 1641 and 
1689, great multitudes of the native Irish were driven 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 389 

from Armagh, and the south of Down, into the moun- 
tainous tract extending from the Barony of Flews east- 
ward to the sea ; on the other side of the kingdom the 
same race were expelled into Leitrim, Sligo, and Mayo. 
Here they have been almost ever since exposed to the 
worst effects of hunger and ignorance, the two great 
brutahsers of the human race. The descendants of 
these exiles are now distinguished physically from 
their kindred in Meath and in other districts where 
they are not in a state of physical degradation. They 
are remarkable for open projecting mouths^ with pro- 
minent teeth and exposed gums. Their advancing 
cheek-bones and depressed noses bear barbarism in 
their very front. In Sligo and the northern Mayo, the 
consequences of two centuries of degradation and 
hardship exhibit themselves in the whole physical con- 
dition of the people, affecting not only the features, 
but the frame, and giving such an example of human 
deterioration from known causes, as almost compen- 
sates, by its value to future ages, for the suffering and 
debasement which past generations have endured in 
perfecting the appalling lesson. Five feet two inches 
on an average, pot-bellied, bow-legged, abortively fea- 
tured, these spectres of a people that were once well 
grown, able-bodied, and comely, stalk abroad into the 
daylight of civilisation, the animal apparitions of Irish 
ugliness and Irish want. In other parts of the island, 
where the population has never undergone the ii> 



390 PHEENOLOGY. 

fluence of the same causes of physical degradation, it 
is well known that the same race furnish the most 
perfect specimens of human beauty and vigour, both 
mental and bodily.' Every bodily fibre acquires 
strength by exercise ; none need be told how much 
muscular power is acquired by a constant and mode- 
rate exertion ; the practised eye will see, the practised 
ear hear, what these organs when unpractised dis- 
tinguish with difficulty ; it is not wonderful, then, if 
the practised brain can also carry on its functions with 
greater facility and increased power. In savage life, 
where subsistence is hardly obtained, and where danger 
is always at a point that keeps the emotions which 
guard existence in constant exercise, men who have to 
struggle for their daily food, and defend themselves 
from their no less daily perils, require from the brain 
but a very small part of what it can accomplish ; their 
greatest stretch of reasoning extends not beyond the 
connecting a bent twig, or a down-trodden leaf, with 
the steps of their prey or their enemy. In such in- 
stances, we may easily conceive that the unexercised 
faculties become as powerless as the limb of an animal 
which from the moment of birth had been restrained 

from movement Such I conceive to be the state 

of the brain which has never been called to exercise 
the higher faculties. The instinctive emotions are 
propagated through it with the almost delirious vio- 
lence which characterises the brute creation, because 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 391 

the fibres destined to carry on the higher reasoning 
functions have remained inert till they have become 
powerless, and man is thus assimilated to the lower 
tribes, not because the organ of thought is wanting, 
but because it has not been exercised. Christophe, 
the negro ruler of Haiti, was probably not removed 
above a generation or two from the African savage, yet 
his daughters were polished and accomplished women, 
fit to take their place in European society. A better 
proof could hardly be given of the improvability of all 
the races of men by education, even in one generation. 
A man is not to be considered as educated because 
some years of his life have been spent in acquiring 
a certain proficiency in the language, history, and 
geography of Greece and Rome and their colonies, or 
in bestowing a transitory attention on the principles of 
mathematics and natural philosophy ; nor is a woman 
to be considered as educated because she can execute 
a difficult piece of music in a brilliant style, or speak 
French, German, or Italian with fluency. Such at- 
tainments require little more than mere mechanical 
recollection, the lowest of all the cerebral faculties, or 
the rapid transmission of an impulse from the sensi- 
tive optic nerve to the motor ones of the arms and 
fingers, which is nothing better than the instinctive 
movements of the animal ; neither can the storing up 
the opinions of others, or the accustoming the tongue 
to the idioms of other languages, be properly termed 



392 PHRENOLOGY. 

an act of thought ; for in such cases the capacity of 
combining ideas, of weighing and judging ere a course of 
action is adopted, remains even less exercised than in 
those who, though they are turned into the world with 
the mind as it were a tabula rasa to receive any im- 
pression, and too frequently a bad one, yet amid the 
difficulties and sufferings of poverty, sometimes learn 
to think. It is from the depths of man's interior life 
that he must draw what separates him from the brute, 
and hallows his animal existence ; and learning is no 
further valuable than as it gives a quantity of raw 
material to be separated and worked up in the intel- 
lectual laboratory, till it comes forth as new in form 
and as increased in value, as the porcelain vase which 
entered the manufactory in the shape of metallic salts, 
clay, and sand." — {Connection between Physiology and 
Intellectual Philosophy) 

There is a great deal of force and truth in these ob- 
servations of Mr Barlow's. No doubt, the accomplish- 
ments he refers to are all intimately connected with 
the lower cerebral faculties, and therefore should not 
be placed in so high a position as they usually are in 
the world ; but still I am inclined to think he under- 
values them too far. They are good in their own place, 
and in some instances are of infinite service in supply- 
ing the material for the higher faculties to use. They 
should be valued at their own worth : but I agree 
with Mr Barlow that it is a great mistake to imagine 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 393 

that they should ever be confounded with the higher 
faculties which raise man over the inferior animals. 
The great beauty of Phrenology is, that it gives every 
faculty its own place, and values it at its real worth. 
In this point of view it stands in a proud position, 
and far outstrips all its competitors. It shows that 
every faculty should be educated. " If you look," says 
Lord Bacon, " at the sculptor or painter, you see him 
finishing a part here or a part there, and thus com- 
pleting the whole ; but if you look at a tree growing, 
you see every part of it growing together." This is 
the great difference between the imperfect works of 
man and the perfect works of God ; and, as Lord 
Bacon very properly observed, the perfect principle 
should be applied to the education of man — every part 
of his nature should be going on in complete corre- 
spondence — his moral nature, his intellectual nature, 
and his physical nature should progress in harmony. 
His education should embrace the intellectual, the re- 
ligious, and the physical. And let me here observe, 
that when I speak of religious education, I do not 
mean alone a proper appreciation of the works of God, 
but I most emphatically include a thorough training 
in those truths which are contained in the Scriptures 
of Truth. The Word of God and the works of God 
should be the foundation of religious instruction. 
How, then, is this part of education to be given ? Is 
it to come from the State ? Most certainly not. A 



394 PHRENOLOGY. 

false system of religion should never be taught, and 
therefore the State plan should never be adopted, for 
the simple reason that the State, in place of standing 
by true religion as contained in the Bible, pays for the 
inculcation of religious principles as contrary to each 
other as any two things could possibly be. This is 
absurd. It is not my intention to enter, in this place, 
on the consideration of what is true and what is false 
in ""religion. But I must say that the State plan is 
something far worse than ridiculous. Just think of 
paying one man to inculcate a certain principle, and 
then paying another man to knock it down ! Such a 
course reminds one of children playing at Dutch bricks 
— the one builds and the other knocks down. Such a 
course, on the part of men, is contemptible. To get 
a proper appreciation of the way in which the State 
manages such matters, we have only to look at the 
countenance it gives to systems as opposite as the 
poles. It pays for Protestantism and Popery ; for 
Trinitarianism and Unitarianism ; for Evangelical 
Christianity and the infidel principles of Colenso ! 
JSTo systems could be more entirely opposite to each 
other than those I have here mentioned. They cannot 
all be right, as they directly contradict each other. 
Truth and falsehood cannot be the same. Hence it is 
worse than absurd to advocate the State management 
which endows them all. The truth is, the State will 
support any system which is strong enough to make 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 395 

itself a source of terror to parliamentary interest. 
The proper plan would be for the State to look after 
secular education, and then leave the religious depart- 
ment where the Scriptures leave it^ — in the hands 
of parents and pastors. This would be the scriptural 
course, and it would put an end to eternal contentions 
and squabbles. 

Hannah More gives us a very good description of 
the superficially educated, the fashionably educated^ 
and the properly educated. For example, when Celebs, 
at dinner, asked a young lady what she thought of 
Virgil as a poet, " she stared, and said she never heard 
of such a person, but that she had read ' Tears of Sen- 
sibility,' and ' Eosa Matilda,' and ' Sympathy of Souls/ 
and ^ Too Civil by Half,' and * The Sorrows of Werter,' 
and ' The Stranger,' and ^ The Orphans of Snowden.' " 
" Yes," said the younger sister, ^' and we have read 
' Perfidy Punished,' and * Jemmy and Jenny Jessamy,' 
and the ^ Fortunate Footman/ and the ' Illustrious 
Chambermaid.'" Such is superficial education. We 
see the nature of the fashionable in Miss Hattle, who^ 
when asked what progress she had made, replied, 
"Indeed, I have not been idle, if I must speak the 
truth. One has so many things to learn, you know. 
I have gone on with my French and Italian, of course, 
and I am beginning German. Then comes my drawing 
master : he teaches me to paint flowers and shells, 
and to draw ruins and buildings, and to take views. 



396 PHRENOLOGY. 

.... And then I learn varnishing, and gilding, and 
japanning. And next winter I shall learn modelling, 
and etching, and engraving in mezzotinto and aqua- 
tint o ; for Lady Di Dash learns etching, and mamma 
says, as I shall have a larger fortune than Lady Di, 
she vows I shall learn everything she does. Then I 
have a dancing master, who teaches me the Scotch 
and Irish steps ; and another who teaches me atti- 
tudes, and I shall soon learn the waltz, and I can stand 
longer on one leg already than Lady Di. Then I have 
a singing master, and another who teaches me the 
harp, and another for the pianoforte. And what little 
time I can spare from these principal things, I give 
my odd minutes to ancient and modern history, and 
geography, and astronomy, and grammar, and botany. 
Then I attend lectures on chemistry and experimental 
philosophy." Let us now turn from the nauseating 
superficial and fashionable to the description of the 
charming Lucilla. " She is not a professed beauty, she 
is not a professed genius, she is not a professed philo- 
sopher, she is Qiot a professed wit, she is not a professed 
anything ; and, I thank my stars, she is not an artist ! 
She is, from nature, — a woman, gentle, feeling, ani- 
mated, modest. She is, by education, — elegant, in- 
formed, enlightened. She is, from religion, — pious, 
humble, candid, charitable." I would strongly recom- 
mend my young gentlemen readers to look out for a 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 397 

Lucilla, and when she is found she cannot be prized 
too highly. 

The fashionable orders of society afford us many ex- 
amples of the effects of defective exercise, both bodily 
and mentally, on the brain and nervous system. This is 
more especially the case with the female sex. It gene- 
rally happens that their circumstances are such as to 
place them in a situation above any sort of exertion, 
save that of lounging for a few hours in an easy car- 
riage. The consequence is, that they are subject to 
nervous affections, headaches, and general debility ; they 
are easily shocked, or alarmed, and become fatigued on 
slight exertion. There is not much tear and wear 
about them. It too frequently happens also, that 
their education is confined to a little polite literature, 
the acquisition of some modern languages, and such 
accomplishments as music, drawing, and dancing ; all 
of which are good enough in their own place, but they 
should never be permitted to exclude those subjects 
which call into play the higher powers concerned in 
deep reflection. If the reflecting portion of the brain 
be not properly and regularly exercised, it will become 
debilitated and incapable of supporting sustained ex- 
ertion. Some ladies in the fashionable walks of Hfe 
present noble examples of mental and bodily activity ; 
but I am sorry to say they are the exceptions to the 
rule. Any person conversant with the condition of a 



398 PHUEXOLOGY. 

lending library must be aware of this. Books which 
are almost devoid of thought are well read, whilst 
those of greater depth are allowed to lie on the shelves 
with the leaves uncut. A great many gentlemen are 
in the same predicament as the ladies I have referred 
to. Their muscular system may be better trained by 
the exercise connected with field sports, but their 
brains are sometimes barren enough* 

A sudden change from activity to idleness is highly 
injudicious. ^'I have known instances of persons," 
says Sir Benjamin Brodie, "whose habits have been 
suddenly changed from those of great activity to those 
of no employment at all, who have been for a time 
in a state of mental excitement bordering on mental 
aberration. ... It was better for Diocletian to plant 
cabbages than to do nothing." " It is the weakening 
and depressing effect upon the brain of the with- 
drawal of the stimulus necessary for its healthy 
exercise," observes Dr Andrew Combe, " which 
renders solitary confinement so severe a punishment 
even to the most daring minds. It is a lower degree 
of the same cause which renders continuous seclu- 
sion from society so injurious to both mental and 
bodily health, and which often renders the situation 
of governesses one of misery and bad health, even 
where every kindness is meant to be shown towards 
them. In many families, especially in the higher ranks, 
the governess lives so secluded that she is as much 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 399 

out of society as if she were placed in solitary con- 
finement. She is too much above the domestics to 
make companions of them, and too much below her 
employers to be treated by them either with confi- 
dence or equality. With feelings as acute, interests 
as dear to her, and a judgment as sound as those of 
any of the persons who scarcely notice her existence, 
she is denied every opportunity of gratifying the first 
or expressing the last, merely because she ' is only the 
governess ; ' as if governesses were not made of the 
same flesh and blood, and sent into the world by the 
same Creator, as their more fortunate employers." 

The time which should be devoted to brain work 
must vary according to age and constitution. Some 
men, owing to temperament, have greater powers of 
endurance than others ; and adults can stand more 
work than children. My father was in the habit of 
spending a considerable portion of his time in the 
open air. He seldom devoted more than eight hours 
a day to reading and writing. By thus judiciously 
combining mental labour with bodily exercise, he kept 
his constitution in first-rate order, and his brain in 
healthy working condition. " I have been informed," 
says Sir Benjamin Brodie, "that Cuvier was usually 
engaged for seven hours daily in scientific researches ; 
but these were not of a nature to require continuous 
thought. Sir Walter Scott, if my recollection be 
accurate, describes himself as having devoted about 



400 PHRENOLOGY. 

six hours daily to literary composition, and his mind 
was then in a state to enjoy some lighter pursuit 
afterwards. After his misfortunes, however, he 
allowed himself no relaxation, and there can be little 
doubt that this over-exertion contributed, as much as 
the moral suffering which he endured, to the produc- 
tion of the disease of the brain which ultimately 
caused his death. Sir David Wilkie found that he 
was exhausted if employed in his peculiar line of 
art for more than four or five hours daily. In fact, 
even among the higher grades of mind there are but 
few that are capable of sustained thought, repeated 
day after day, for a much longer period than this. 
For any one who is engaged in intellectual pursuits 
there is no more important rule of conduct than that 
he should endeavour to take a just measure of his 
own capacity, so that he may not be subject to the 
ill consequences which arise from the mind being 
strained beyond its natural powers." — [Psychological 
Inquiries.) " The author," observes Sir John Sinclair, 
" has studied twelve hours a day for three months ; 
but that was in the prime of life, and for a particular 
purpose ; and he would not recommend it to any 
other person to try the same experiment for any 
length of time. It appears from Cooper's Memoirs 
of Dr Priestly, that though he is supposed to have 
written more, and on a greater variety of subjects, 
than any other English author, yet it does not appear 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 401 

that at any period of his life he spent more than six 
or eight hours a day in business requiring much 
mental exertion. It is incredible, indeed, what may 
be done at that rate in the course of a life of medium 
duration." — {Code of Health and Longevity^ 

If we allow the nerve of the eye to become inactive 
by remaining for a length of time in a dark place, and 
then suddenly expose it to the light, we will find it 
very disagreeable. In order to preserve the full power 
of vision, the eye must be strengthened by a regular, 
moderate, and properly^ adjusted supply of light. It 
will be weakened, on the one hand, by the exclusion 
of light, and on the other, it will be overpowered, and 
very likely injured, by being brought into contact with 
the direct rays of the sun. As in other cases, moderar 
tion is here the best. Those who use their eyes much 
on minute objects, such as watchmakers and engravers, 
or in too strong a light, such as glass-blowers, nailors, 
and smiths, are far more liable than sailors and agri- 
culturists to disease of the nervous expansion of the 
eye. So is it also with the brain. A certain amount 
of work will do it good, but more than this must be 
injurious. Every person who is in the habit of think- 
ing much may feel very sensibly the effects on the 
brain of too great mental exertion. Nay, more, the 
sensation of fatigue may even be locaUsed in the 
forehead. There is a time when the sensations in 

our head tell us we have gone far enough in study, 

2c 



402 PHRENOLOGY. 

and if we neglect these natural admonitions, we will 
certainly suffer for it. Intense study, and too great 
and long-continued excitement, are sure to overwork 
the powers of the brain, and exhaust its energies. The 
waste of substance will be greater than the amount of 
deposition : the brain will get soft, flabby, weak, and 
incapable of much endurance. It will be injured in 
every way. Such is the teaching of Phrenology, and 
such is the experience of every man who consults 
nature ; but it is quite otherwise with those who 
follow the ravings of the Jeffrey school, which teaches 
that the mind alone is engaged in the process of deep 
reflection. Of course, on their system, the fatigue, 
exhaustion, and decay must all be in the mind, and 
therefore the mind must be material. They are all 
compelled to be materialists. A spirit could not be 
overworked or become fatigued. The idea of fatiguing 
a spirit is absurd ; and therefore, if the weariness be 
in the mind, the mind is not spirit, but matter. 

The effects of excitement of the brain are well dis- 
played in the use of spirituous liquors. A small dose 
will increase the capability for either mental, as it is 
called, or bodily exertion. In proportion as the dose 
is increased will the excitement increase, until the 
energies of the brain are exhausted, and the person 
falls into such a stupid condition that the mind appears 
to wander, and the brain's governing influence over 
the muscles is so far lost that the individual totters 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 403 

and falls powerless on the ground. The stimulant 
makes an impression first on the nerves which are dis- 
tributed on the coats of the stomach, and this is im- 
mediately conveyed to the brain ; but at a later period 
it may be absorbed into the circulation of the blood, 
and part of it may be deposited even in the substance 
or cavities of the brain itself. Sir Benjamin Brodie 
concluded from his experiments that it acts through 
the nerves of the stomach alone, and is not absorbed 
into the circulation of the blood at all. The observa- 
tions of Pommer and Andral would tend to the same 
conclusion. That it is sometimes absorbed, however, 
is proved by Christison, Coindet, Graves, and Cook. 
'' I remember," says Dr Graves, " having witnessed the 
dissection of a sweep whose brain and its membranes 
exhaled a notable smell of spirits ; and Dr Cook, in 
his work on Nervous Diseases, has recorded a case 
where there was found in the ventricles a clear fluid 
which had the taste "and smell of alcohol, and which took 
fire on being brought near a burning body." — (Graves' 
Studies in Physiology and Medicine.) I know of one 
case myself which is very decisive on this point. In 
the winter of 1833-4, a man got drunk, and attacked 
the watchman in WiUiam Street, Dublin. A severe 
scuffle ensued, and by some means or other the man's 
skull was fractured. He was carried to the Hospital, 
where he died. I was present at the dissection of his 
brain. A quantity of fluid having a distinct smell of 



404 PHRENOLOGY. 

whisky was found in the ventricles of the brain, and 
when a lighted candle was applied, it burned with a 
blue flame. Now, the question arises, when the man 
becomes drunk, and his mind appears to wander and 
rave, is it the mind or the brain which is affected ? 
Can the mind become intoxicated ? Is it not prepos- 
terous to imagine that a spirit could get drunk ? And 
yet such is the awful consequence of the opinions of 
those who deny the connexion which the Phrenologist 
attributes to the mind and the brain. The brain is the 
part which really suffers, and it then becomes unfit for 
the manifestations of the mind. A man intoxicated 
is literally mad. He raves, is perhaps unconscious of 
his actions, and commits crimes which at other times 
would make him shudder to think of. He is neverthe- 
less most certainly culpable and ought to be suitably 
punished for his misdeeds, because he wilfully made 
himself drunk. In this respect, he differs from the 
ordinary maniac, and consequently no apology what- 
ever can be made for him, except that his crimes were 
not premeditated. Again I ask, is the derangement 
in the brain or in the mind? Those who take the 
phrenological explanation will say that the mind is not 
in the slightest degree affected, but that all is in the 
brain. Whereas those who deny the fundamental 
principles of Phrenology are compelled to refer such 
changes to the mind itself, or else hold opinions con- 
trary to, and inconsistent with each other. They at- 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 405 

tribute changes to mind which can take place in 
material substances alone, and of course must believe 
that the mind is not spirit, but matter. At least, this 
is the only legitimate result of their opinions. They 
raise the cry of materialism against the Phrenologist, 
but I am determined to make them swallow their own 
dogmas. 

Whisky is a stimulant to the brain ; so is the blood. 
The one is an artificial, the other is a natural stimu- 
lant. In moderate portions, the blood communicates 
health and vigour ; in large quantities, it causes stupor 
and death. Where is the man who could exercise his 
mind under a fit of apoplexy, when the brain is gorged 
with blood, or in a fit of fainting, when it is deprived 
of it ? Is it the mind or the brain is affected now ? 
Can the mind faint or become apoplectic ? Truly, the 
Phrenologist is the only man who can avoid being 
ridiculous. The brain, not the mind, is the part which 
really suffers from an over-circulation of blood, and 
therefore it behoves all men to guard against cerebral 
excitement. How many instances are there where 
people die of apoplexy induced by a fit of passion ! I 
am certain my readers have all heard of such cases. 
But if sudden excitement can induce apoplexy and 
death, there can be no doubt that equally injurious 
consequences will be the result, by slower degrees, of 
too great and too long-continued mental exercise. As 
Esquirol remarks, the excessive excitement drives the 



406 PHEENOLOGY. 

brain '* beyond its physiological powers.'^ Facts, 
almost innumerable, tend to prove that the brain be- 
comes weakened by mental inactivity ; grows stronger 
and more vigorous by properly-adjusted and regularly- 
repeated mental exercise ; and becomes more or less 
diseased by too violent or too long-continued mental 
excitement. 

''The importance," says Professor Caldwell, of 
America, " of the judicious education and general 
management of the brain, and the serious evils arising 
from neglect and errors in them, lead me to make a 
few remarks on the subject. Dyspepsia and mental 
derangement are among the most grievous maladies 
that affect the human race ; and they are much more 
nearly allied to each other [than they are generally 
supposed to be. So true is this, that the one is not 
unfrequently converted into the other, and often alter- 
nates with it. The lunatic is usually dyspeptic during 
his lucid intervals ; and complaints which begin in 
some form of gastric derangement turn in many 
instances to madness." This is owing to the connexion 
and sympathy which exist between the stomach and 
the brain. It generally happens that diseases affect- 
ing one of these organs will more or less influence the 
other, just in the same way as a blow on the head will 
cause the stomach to eject its contents, or a sudden 
stroke over the region of the stomach will cause a per- 
son to faint. "Dyspepsia and madness," continues 



EFFECTS OF EXEECISE. 407 

Dr Caldwell, '' prevail more extensively in the United 
States, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, 
than among the people of any other nation. Of the 
amount of our dyspeptics no estimate can be formed, 
but it is immense. Whether we inquire in cities, 
towns, villages, or country places— among the rich, 
the poor, or those in moderate circumstances — we find 
dyspepsia more or less prevalent throughout the land. 
In other countries this is not the case — not, I mean, 
to anything near the same extent. True, in Great 
Britain, Germany, and France, the complaint assails 
the higher classes of society ; but there it stops, — the 
common and lower classes scarcely knowing it except 
by name. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, it is still 
less common among all ranks of the people. 

" Insanity prevails in America to an alarming ex- 
tent, and, in common with dyspepsia, is on the increase. 
The entire number of the insane in the United States 
is computed at fifty thousand. There are a thousand 
lunatics in the State of Connecticut. This is in the 
ratio of one to every two hundred and sixty-two of 
the inhabitants of the State. In England, the number 
of insane persons does not exceed twelve or thirteen 
thousand. In the agricultural districts there, the 
average ratio is about one in eight hundred and twenty 
of the whole population, being to that of Connecticut 
less than one to three. Yet in England the disease 
prevails to a greater extent than in any other nation 



408 PHRENOLOGY. 

in Europe. In Scotland, the general proportion, in- 
cluding towns and cities as well as country places, is 
one in five hundred and seventy-four." The propor- 
tion of insane persons is generally reported as being 
greater in Scotland than in England ; but such state- 
ments must be taken with some limitations, inasmuch 
as Quetelet informs us that the difference is owing in 
some measure to the fact that idiots are classed among 
the insane, and as they amount to one half the number 
of the deranged persons in Scotland, of course they 
swell the list very materially. " There is everywhere 
more madness," continues Dr Caldwell, " according to 
the amount of population, in cities than in the country. 
In Spain and Russia, the large cities excepted, there 
is very little ; in Turkey, Persia^ and China, still less. 
Of Hindoostan the same is true ; and in savage nations, 
especially where no ardent spirits are used, the com- 
plaint is scarcely known. Such is the report of aU 
travellers among the Indians of North and South 
America. To this it may be subjoined that the in- 
sanity of a people is increased by the occurrence 
among them of any deep and extensive mental com- 
motion, whether from theological or political causes. 
Such, as history informs us, was the effect of the Re- 
formation by Luther, of the Revolution by Cromwell, 
of the American Revolution, and more especially of 
the first Revolution in France. During the convul- 



EFFECTS OF EXERCISE. 409 

sions of the latter event, the frequency of insanity in 
Paris was frightful. 

" From these facts it appears that, in proportion to 
the freedom of action of the human mind in any 
country, more especially in proportion as it is tossed 
and perplexed by strong passions and emotions, is the 
amount of madness by which that country is visited. 
This result we should expect from calculations on well- 
known principles ; and observation testifies to its 
truth. In common times, there is more mental agita- 
tion in Great Britain than in France ; more in France 
than in Spain or Eussia, and much more in either of 
them than in Turkey, Persia, or China. And in savage 
tribes, except during the hours of hunting and battle, 
there is no mental agitation at all — none, certainly, of 
a distracting character. It clearly appears that, in 
civilised nations, the degree of distracting mental 
emotion which the people generally experience, is in 
proportion to the amount of the freedom they enjoy. 
The people of England and Scotland enjoy more freedom 
than the people of France, and the latter more than 
those of Spain or Eussia. In Turkey, Persia, and 
China, political freedom is unknown. The despotism 
of government compresses the mind of the subjects 
into a dead and hopeless calm. Unable to render 
their condition any better, the degraded population 
cease, in appearance, to wish it so, or even to disquiet 



410 PHEENOLOGY. 

themselves on the subject. Very different is the con- 
dition of things in the United States. Our freedom, 
both political and religious, is ample, and we push 
and enjoy it to its utmost limits. State and Church 
preferment and office are open to every one ; and the 
ardour, keenness, and constancy of competition and 
struggle for them, have no example in the practices of 
the present or the history of the past. The fervour 
and commotion of electioneering intrigue has no res- 
pite. Under such form the country is agitated, I 
might almost say convulsed by it, from the beginning 
to the end of the year, and of every year. Thus are 
the angry and burning passions kept for ever awake 
among the people, and often urged to the most in- 
tense action." The brain is continually overworked 
and over-excited, and consequently insanity frequently 
results. If we wish to keep the brain in good working 
condition, we must supply it with pure, well- vitalised 
blood ; give it regular, but not excessive, exercise ; and 
allow it such repose, at proper intervals, as will permit 
it to recruit its flagging energies. 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 

In females, the head is usually longer and narrower 
than in males. In the former, the brain weighs, on 
the average, about three pounds and a quarter ; in the 
latter, about three pounds and a half. The difference 



THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 411 

in the development of the brain, whether we consider 
it as to its absolute size, or in regard to the relation of 
its different parts to each other, demonstrates in the 
most satisfactory manner that the male and female 
are intended by the Creator to occupy different spheres. 
This is shown by the very characteristic differences 
which are found in the development of the organ 
through which the mind acts. Some parties advocate 
the perfect equality of the sexes on every point, and 
consider that their education, training, and occupations 
should be assimilated. These views, however, appear 
to me not only contrary to Scripture, but also contrary 
to nature, as seen in the development of the brain. 
They are not only opposed to observable facts, but 
they are also inconsistent with what is to be wished 
for as desirable. The female character is marked by 
retiring modesty, delicacy, and refinement ; whilst the 
masculine disposition is more energetic, rough, bust- 
ling, business-like, and formidable. The one evidently 
requires protection, and the other is calculated to give 
it. The one softens and refines society, and the other 
requires the balmy and soothing influence of the 
softer sex. That this is the order of creation, and is 
not owing to habit or civilisation, may be known from 
the fact, that the same law is observable in the de- 
velopment of the lower animals, from the lion of the 
forest downwards. The male reigns over and protects 
the female. The law which exists in the lower grades 



412 PHEENOLOGY. 

of creation is just the one which should exist in the 
higher. Females are so much to be respected when 
they properly occupy their own sphere, that they 
should never attempt to go out of it. For my part, 
I do not envy the taste of the man who admires an 
extremely bold and masculine woman ; nor yet the 
good sense of the woman who makes choice of a very 
effeminate man. It is much nicer to see each sex 
bearing its own proper characteristics. A lady has no 
more right to feel herself complimented, when called 
an amazon, than the Coleraine Militia had when Mr 
Hunter said, after inspecting them, that "they had be- 
haved like ladies." 

As I have already observed, the brain, in the male, 
averages about three pounds and a half. Of course, 
there are many instances in which it is above or below 
this standard. In Baron Cuvier, it weighed sixty-four 
ounces and a half ; in Dr Abercrombie, sixty-three 
ounces ; in Baron Dupuytren, sixty-three ounces and 
a half ; in Lord Byron, fifty-eight ounces ; and in Dr 
Chalmers, fifty-three ounces. Dr Chalmers had a 
large head, but the skull was very thick. According 
to Meckel, the brain of a new-born infant weighs ten 
ounces ; and the relative size of its different sections 
varies greatly up to the seventh year, when all its parts 
are observable. Sir William Hamilton, who was a 
bitter enemy of Phrenology, maintained the extraordi- 
nary opinion that the brain came to its full size at 



THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 413 

the seventh year. More accurate observers, however, 
are of opinion that it does not arrive at its full dimen- 
sions until after the twentieth year. But if Sir William 
Hamilton opposed the Phrenologists by an excessively 
early maturity of brain, some anatomists have gone as 
far astray on the other side. Prochaska, for instance, 
affirms that " the muscles in the foetus and the new- 
born infant have the automatic movement, and not 
the voluntary, because the brain is not yet in a state 
to think ; " and Bichat says, ^' We may conclude with 
confidence that in the foetus the animal life is nothing. 
.... The foetus has, so to speak, nothing in its phe- 
nomena of what especially characterises an animal ; its 

existence is the same as that of a vegetable Its 

destruction is that of a living being, not of an animated 
being." Such views are highly dangerous in a moral 
and religious aspect, inasmuch as they ignore the ex- 
istence of mind, or soul, until some time after birth. 
If the infant possesses nothing but vegetable life, it is 
manifest that its destruction would involve no sin 
whatever. The sentiments of these anatomists are 
subversive of morality. A careful examination of his- 
tory will show that the false opinions of philosophers 
in one generation, become the popular sentiments of 
the multitudes in succeeding generations ; and it may 
perhaps be owing to this principle that opinions such 
as uttered by Prochaska and Bichat, have T^een handed 
down to the public in such a way as to produce the 



414 PHRENOLOGY. 

recklessness which we now witness in regard to the 
practice of infanticide. I have constantly observed 
that there is not the same feeling on the mind of the 
mother of illegitimate children with regard to the pro- 
duction of premature confinement or abortion that 
there is about the destruction of their offspring after 
birth. I have found it so impossible to persuade them 
that the one act is as sinful as the other, that I have 
frequently thought it right to frighten them by telling 
them the position they would be placed in by the law 
of the land if they attempted to take anything to pro- 
cure abortion. I have seen many parties who thought 
it would be no sin to induce abortion, because they 
did not think the child had animal life. 

The brain is a soft, whitish-coloured mass, totally 
devoid of feeling. It may be cut or sliced away, in the 
living animal, without causing the slightest pain, pro- 
vided the operation is done cautiously, so as not to 
press downwards on the top of the spinal marrow. 
^' The greatest part of the brain," says Magendie, '' is 
insensible to puncture, lacerations, sections, and even 
to cauterisation." The brain, with its membranes, fills 
the entire skull above the level of the eye and ear. It 
is divided (see Plate I.) down the centre, from before 
backwards, (A to B,) into two equal and symmetrical 
halves which become united at the bottom or base. 
This is a most important arrangement, inasmuch as it 
renders an organ which is completely double, capable 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 415 

of single or united action. There are two sets of 
organs, one on each side of the median line, which are 
identical in their anatomical structure, as well as in 
their physiological functions ; and although there is 

A 




B 
PLATE I.— UPPER SURFACE OF BRAIN. 

as perfect a separation between them as there is be- 
tween the eyes, the ears, the hands, or the feet, (see 
Plate I,) they are still capable of a combined action in 
consequence of their union at the base. By keeping 
this peculiar arrangement in view, (and it is an arrange- 
ment which no anatomist or physiologist dare deny,) we 
will be able to explain, without the least difficulty, all 
the symptoms which are observed after accidents and 



416 PHRENOLOGY. 

injuries to the brain. Our opponents, owing to their 
consummate ignorance, have raised some ridiculous ob- 
jections to Phrenology on this head, just as if there 
was any reason why a person should be unable to 
think after receiving an injury on one side of the 
head alone, any more than he would be incapable of 
seeing after losing one eye. As I have already said, 
no anatomist dare deny that the brain is actually 
double. Why, then, is he so inconsistent as to hold 
that injury of the one side must of necessity destroy 
the functions of the other ? Nothing could account 
for it, but blind and bitter opposition to Phrenology. 
Nay, more, the position I am advocating is completely 
sustained by our daily observation of cases of paralysis 
affecting the base of the brain. The nerves which 
take their origin from one side of the brain may be 
completely paralysed, whilst those which are connected 
with the other side may remain as perfect as ever, thus 
proving, even on the acknowledged principles of my 
opponents, that the brain is divided into two halves, 
both anatomically and functionally. If a medical prac- 
titioner be called to a patient, and he finds that one 
side of the tongue, one side of the face, one side of the 
body, and one eye, are paralysed, whilst the corre- 
sponding organs on the other side are all perfect, he at 
once draws the conclusion, which is based on his 
anatomical and physiological knowledge, that only one 
side of the brain and spinal marrow is affected by the 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 417 

injury. Why, then, should the Phrenologist be ridi- 
culed because he adopts the same principle, and main- 
tains that an injury on the organ of causality or 
caution on one side of the head does not of necessity 
destroy the function of* the corresponding organ on 
the other side of the head ? Is the privilege of the 
double organ to be allowed to the Physiologist and 
refused to the Phrenologist 1 No honest man would 
say it is. 

'' I have proved," says Dr Gall, " in the first volume 
of my large work, that the nervous systems of the 
spinal marrow, of the organs of sense, and of the brain, 
are double, or in pairs. But as, when one of the eyes 
is destroyed, we continue to see with the other eye ; 
so when one of the hemispheres of the brain has be- 
come incapable of executing its functions, the other 
hemisphere may continue to perform those duties 
belonging to itself. In other words, the functions 
may be disturbed or suspended on one side, and re- 
main perfect on the other. Tiedemann relates an 
instance of a man, named Joseph Moser, who was 
deranged on one side of his brain, and with the sound 
side observed his own alienation." That the eyes, the 
ears, and the Phrenological organs should all be double, 
is a matter of great moment, because it permits the 
functions on the one side to proceed after they have 
been destroyed on the other ; and therefore the indi- 
vidual is not left in such a miserable and helpless 

2d 



418 PHRENOLOGY. 

condition, from occasional accidents or diseases, as lie 
would be if those parts were all single. One organ 
being left intact, enables the function to proceed, 
although I do not imagine that the function will be 
as strong and perfect as if both organs were in full 
action. The one may do, but both would be better. 

Mr Hewett Watson has very ingeniously suggested 
another reason for the double brain. "The human 
frame," says he, " is almost a double ; the one side 
being nearly a counterpart of the other. But many 
of the double parts, from their use and constitution, 
act individually as well as jointly ; and when acting in 
concert, their actions are often different, and some- 
times opposed. In walking, the legs move alternately, 
one being held more or less steady, while the other 
is in motion ; and, when both move at once, their 
motions usually differ in kind or degree. The hands, 
in like manner, are made to perform different motions 
at the same instant, and such are frequently antago- 
nistic motions. So also the eyes and ears receive and 
transmit sensations singly, at the same instant of 
time. Hence it appears like a matter of necessity 
that the internal organs, which guide the hands, legs, 
eyes, and ears, as well as those which receive sensa- 
tions therefrom or thereby, should also be double. 
But if it be necessary that the two legs and hands, 
the two eyes and ears, should be able to exert inde- 
pendent and even antagonistic actions at the same 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 419 

time ; so may the brain be required to perform inde- 
pendent or antagonistic actions at the same time, and 
thus necessarily be doubled throughout, the two hemi- 
spheres being capable of acting singly or jointly. In 
playing at chess, a person makes schemes and deter- 
mines the movements of the pieces on his own side. 
To do this successfully, he must mentally play the 
game of his adversary as well as of himself ; within 
his own cranium he must carry on the work of two 
brains — brains working in opposition to each other. 
It would hence appear that we must have the pre- 
sumed ideas of others, as well as our own ideas, pic- 
torially present in the brain at the same instant. But 
if our own ideas co-exist with the represented ideas 
of another, we are driven to conclude either that the 
two corresponding organs, manifesting any given func- 
tion, work individually, or that each exists in two 
different states at the same instant. The only way 
of escaping this dilemma, is by denying the co-exis- 
tence of ideas, and attributing the apparent consci- 
ousness of it to the rapidity with which they 
succeed each other, — an assumption not unreasonable, 
but fully as gratuitous. It appears to me, that the 
co-existence of ideas is most easily reconcilable with 
observed facts, and that the existence of two con- 
nected brains thus becomes necessary.'^ Mr Watson's 
hypothesis is certainly very ingenious, and I am dis- 
posed to think that it rests on a solid foundation. It 



420 PHRENOLOGY. 

would certainly account in the most satisfactory 
manner for the peculiar powers, already referred to, 
which are possessed by Pape, Paulsen, and Paul Mor- 
phy. It would also explain a fact which has often 
occurred in my own experience — namely, that, in my 
dreams, I have carried on vigorous discussions with 
opponents on different questions. In these discus- 
sions, I have heard my opponents' objections and 
answered them, without having the least conscious- 
ness, till I awoke, that the objections and answers 
were both my own productions. In these cases, my 
brain must, for the time being, have been acting a 
double part, the part of two opposing individuals. I 
can see no way of accounting for such phenomena 
except on the principles suggested by Mr Wat- 
son. 

The Phrenological Journal^ for 1837, contains an 
authentic case of dreaming, which is strongly cor- 
roborative of Mr Watson's theory. " Mr S. dreamt 
that he was in his parlour with a friend, and that a 
piece of black cloth was lying upon the table, but 
which his friend happened to remark was flesh-colour. 
Hereupon arose a discussion as to the colour of the 
cloth, Mr S. maintaining that it was black, and his 
friend as strenuously insisting that it was flesh-colour. 
The dispute became warm, and Mr S. offered to bet 
that it was black ; his friend also offering to bet that 
it was flesh-colour. Mr S. concluded the bet, when his 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 421 

friend immediately exclaimed, ' And is not black the 
colour of more than half the human race ? ' thus com- 
pletely stealing a march upon Mr S., and winning the 
bet. Mr S. declares that the idea of black being en- 
titled to the name of ilesh-colour bad never before 
occurred to him. The extraordinary part of this dream 
is, that two operations were going on at the same time 
in the mind of Mr S. — the workings of each apparently 
quite concealed from the other. For instance, the 
part of the brain which personated himself had no 
knowledge of the loop-hole which the part of the brain 
personating his friend had in reserve to close the argu- 
ment. On the contrary, he says that he was utterly 
abashed by the remark, immediately thinking to him- 
self how foolish he was not to have been in possession 
of the idea, A Phrenological solution of the mental 
operation of this dream would probably be very in- 
teresting, for there certainly appears to have been two 
trains of argument carried on at the same time in the 
same brain, ea^ch not only unconscious of the other, 
but with an effectual barrier of concealment placed 
between the two." Mr Watson's theory would give 
a satisfactory explanation of this case ; more especially 
when we consider that it is quite possible for the part 
of the brain which connects the two hemispheres to 
be lulled into temporary inactivity by sleep. One 
part of the brain may be asleep, while another part is 
in action, in the same w^ay as one arm or one leg may 



422 PHEENOLOGY. 

be in motioD, whilst the rest of the body is at rest and 
asleep. 

Ryan's London Medical and Surgical Journal for 
1834, contains some observations by Dr Stokes, of 
Dublin, on the double brain. ''To return," says he> 
''to the interesting consideration of great loss of 
cerebral substance with preservation of intellect, I 
have to remark, that this circumstance is one which 
some persons might quote against the opinion that 
the brain was the organ of intelligence ; and I believe 
this fact has been laid hold of by the opponents of 
Phrenology, and put forward as a powerful argument 
against the truth of its doctrines. Thus, in the case 
of Mr O'Halloran's patient, who lost a large portion of 
one hemisphere, and yet, with all this mischief, the 
powers of the intellect remained unimpaired ; it would 
not seem strange if a person should say. Here is vast 
destruction of substance without any lesion of intelli- 
gence ; how then can the brain be considered as the 
organ of thought ? " With all due deference to Dr 
Stokes, I must say that it would appear to me very 
strange, that, in the case supposed, where the brain is 
double, and one hemisphere alone is stated to have 
been injured, any person should imagine for a moment 
that it militated against the idea of the brain being 
the organ of thought. It would just be as foolish to 
imagine that Mr O'Halloran's case removed the brain 
from the province of thought, as it would be to sup- 



THE BEAIX AND SKULL. 423 

pose that the eye was not the organ of sight, because 
a person can continue to see after one eye is destroyed. 
Seeing that the brain is double, Mr O'Halloran's case 
can give the Phrenologist no trouble whatever. The 
Phrenologist could be overturned only by the produc- 
tion of a case which has never been seen in the world — 
namely, a case in which the whole brain has been re- 
moved whilst the patient has retained the power of 
thought. 

But Dr Stokes continues, " I have already shown 
that it is a law in pathology that lesion of structure 
and lesion of function are not always commensurate. 
This law applies to the brain as well as to all the other 
organs. To say that the brain was not the organ of 
intelligence, because in cases of extensive cerebral 
disease that intelligence was preserved, is false reason- 
ing. A man will digest with a cancerous stomach ; — 
is it to be argued from this that the stomach is not the 
organ of digestion ? I have seen the liver completely 
burrowed by abscesses, yet the gall-bladder was full of 
healthy bile. I have seen one lung completely ob- 
literated, and yet the respirations only sixteen in the 
minute, and the face without lividity. What do these 
facts prove ? Not that the health of organs is of no 
consequence, but that with great disease there may be 
little injury of function. Organs are primitively 
double ; and we find, that though the fusion at the 
median line is produced by development, yet that the 



424 PHRENOLOGY. 

symmetrical halves still, to a certain degree, preserve 
their individuality. Now, admitting that the brain is 
the organ of thought, we may suppose that, as in case 
of partial obstruction of the lung from inflammation, 
the remainder of the organ takes on an increased action, 
so as to supply the place of that which has been in- 
jured or dastroyed. We know, that if one lung be 
hepatised the other takes on its functions, and carries 
on the process of respiration for a time ; and it has 
been further established, that the lung which thus 
takes on a supplemental action may become enlarged 
and hypertrophied. May not this also occur in the 
brain ? There is no reason why such a pathological 
phenomenon, occurring in one viscus, may not also take 
place in another." The explanation here given by Dr 
Stokes is both ingenious and rational. There can be 
no doubt that after the loss of one eye, the other eye 
takes on an increased action, and ultimately becomes 
so far improved that it answers wonderfully well for 
the purposes of vision, although I do not imagine that 
it is ever quite equal to the power of two. So 
also may it be with the brain. One hemisphere may 
improve so much as to compensate to a great extent 
for the loss of the other. There is nothing irrational 
in this supposition. On the contrary, it is perfectly 
consistent with analogous facts. 

" But the opponents of Phrenology say,^^ continues 
Dr Stokes, " supposing the organ of causation to be 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 425 

destroyed, how can the person continue to reason ? It 
strikes me that the only way in which we can account 
for this is, by supposing that other parts of the brain 
take on the functions of those which have been injured 
or destroyed. We see, almost every day, examples of 
this kind. We see that in certain diseased states of 
the liver, accompanied by suppression of its secretion, 
its functions are assumed by other parts, and bile con- 
tinues to be separated from the blood by the kidneys, 
salivary glands, and by the cutaneous exhalants. Here 
is a remarkable case, in which the glands and other 
parts take on the performance of a function totally 
different from that in which they are ordinarily em- 
ployed. Now, supposing that a portion of the brain is 
to be looked upon as the organ of causation, and such 
portion is injured or destroyed, there is no reason why 
the remaining sound portion of brain should not take 
on, at least to a certain extent, in addition to its own, 
the functions of that part which has been injured." 
I am sorry that I am obliged to dissent entirely from 
the opinion here set forth. Although it is intended 
to favour the Phrenological side of the question, I 
cannot accept of it. I would not think it right to per- 
mit my own case to be proved by any argument of the 
truth of which I had reasonable doubt. If I could not 
support Phrenology on perfectly satisfactory grounds, 
I would give it up. I do not consider Dr Stokes' 
illustration quite in point, because we are not suf- 



426 PHRENOLOGY. 

ficiently acquainted with the nature of secretion to be 
able to draw unerring conclusions from the actions of 
the secreting organs. I do not consider that any other 
organ of the brain can perform the duty of the organ of 
causality, and therefore, if I were placed in a difficulty, 
I would not attempt to get out of it by this explanation. 
It is just as impossible, for example, for the organ of 
philoprogenitiveness to do the duty of the organ of 
causality, as it is for us to see with our ears, hear with 
our eyes, and smell with our fingers. Dr Stokes says 
it is only by a supposition of the kind he has made 
'' that we can account for the preservation of the in- 
tegrity of mind in many cases of disease of the brain." 
Let the consequences be what they may, I will not 
adopt Dr Stokes' explanation, because I do not believe 
it to be correct. I will never support my own side by 
an argument which I would not permit my opponent 
to use, if I were on the other side of the question. But 
the point of importance is. Is the Phrenologist ever 
placed in the predicament in which Dr Stokes imagines 
him to be ? I say. Most decidedly not. He does not 
require to get out of the difficulty, because he has never 
been in it. No such case has ever occurred in the 
history of the world. No example has ever been forth- 
coming in which the organ of causality, on both sides 
of the brain, has been completely removed down to its 
base at the top of the spinal marrow, and yet the per- 
son has retained the power of causation. It will be 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 427 

quite time enough to discuss the question when an 
example is produced. In the meantime it is only a 
myth. If it were produced, however, in place of meet- 
ing it on Dr Stokes' plan, I would renounce Phrenology 
as a fable. 

Dr Stokes concludes his argument with the follow- 
ing important remarks, " On this subject one point 
should be always borne in mind, viz., that we may be 
WTong in saying that a patient is quite sane while he is 
still an invalid and in bed. Unless we can show that 
after his recovery, and in his various intercourse with 
the world, he preserves his original intelligence, it 
would be wrong to assert that there has been abso- 
lutely no lesion of intellect consequent on the affection 
of the brain. While lying at ease in bed, and un- 
affected by any moral stimuli, he may seem to possess 
a sound condition of mind ; he may put out his tongue 
or stretch forth his hand when requested ; he may 
give an accurate account of his symptoms, and answer 
all the ordinary medical interrogatories with precision. 
But you are not from this to conclude that he is per- 
fectly sane." With these observationSj I entirely con- 
cur. But what do we find in practice is the case ? 
Just that the sanity of the patient is judged on the 
most insignificant grounds. If be be able to answer a 
few trivial questions, and put out his tongue, he is 
considered to be equal to the deepest process of 
mathematical reasoniiig. Without any further. tests, 



428 PHEENOLOGY. 

he woLild be placed almost on a par with Sir Isaac 
Newton. 

Although the brain is completely divided into two 
hemispheres at the top, it is more or less connected 
together at the base. From this it results, that the 
variety of organs in the brain does not present con- 
fusion to the mind. The organs in one sense are quite 
independent of each other ; but in another sense, by 
the crossing or interlacing of fibres, they are brought 
into harmonious and united action. I believe that 
this union of a complicated organ is the proper foun- 
dation for explaining single consciousness. So long as 
the parts are all in perfect development and health, 
consciousness is single ; but when disease occurs in 
the connecting or decussating parts, consciousness 
may be double. There are numerous examples of 
double consciousness in regard to vision in parties 
affected with disease of the brain or optic nerves ;— 
they see double. So is it also with the other cerebral 
faculties. Books on insanity abound with records of 
cases of double and perverted consciousness. All such 
cases are capable of solution on the principle of a 
double yet connected brain. When healthy, conscious- 
ness is single ; when diseased in particular parts, it 
may become double. 

Each of the hemispheres of the brain has been sub- 
divided by anatomists into an anterior, a middle, and 
a posterior lobe, corresponding with the front, the 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 



429 



middle, and the back of the head. These divisions 
are convenient in practice, and they are tolerably well 
marked, but there is no such distinct line of separation 
between them as that which is found between the two 
hemispheres. Immediately under the posterior lobe 
of the cerebrum, or true brain, as it is called by anato- 
mists, and directly behind the ears, we have a toler- 
ably large and well-defined mass, called the cerebellum, 
or little, or false brain ; and at the place the cerebrum 
and cerebellum unite, there is another small, roundish, 
and long-shaped mass, called the medulla oblongata, 




PLATE II. — VERTICAL SECTION OF THE HEAD. 

which connects the brain with the spinal marrow. 
(See Plate 2.) In man, the posterior lobe of the cere- 
brum always projects over and covers the cerebellum. 



430 PHRENOLOGY. 

as seen in Plate 2. A sharp discussion occurred, some 
time since, between Professor Owen and Professor 
Huxley, as to the exact amount of projection of the 
posterior lobe of the cerebrum, which is found in apes, 
in comparison with man. I do not pretend to be able 
to form an opinion as to the exact anatomical point 
involved in this controversy ; but I believe a very 
marked difference will be found between man and the 
inferior animals in the development of some parts of 
the middle and anterior lobes. It is by those chiefly 
that man is distinguished from the inferior animals, 
inasmuch as they contain the moral and reflecting 
faculties. The convolutions on the surface of the 
brain also present a mark worthy of observation. In 
man they extend over the whole cerebral surface, are 
deep, and very numerous, (See Plates 1 and 2 ;) 
whereas, they become less numerous and shallower as 
we pass downwards in the scale of creation, until, in 
some of the lower grades, they are wanting entirely. 
It is stated by Soemmering that the convolutions do not 
appear on the brain of the human foetus until about the 
sixth month of its existence. At this period they 
commence to form, and go on increasing till the age of 
puberty, thus keeping pace with the manifestation of 
the intellectual powers of the individual. 

There are ventricles, or cavities, in the interior of 
the brain, which " are lined by a thin diaphanous 
lining membrane, covered with ciliated epithelium, 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 431 

and moistened by a serous fluid, which is sometimes, 
even in health, secreted in considerable quantity." — 
(Gray's Anatomy.) In the ordinary state, the secre- 
tion and absorption of this serous fluid bear such a 
relation to each other, that the quantity is never ex- 
cessive ; but under disease the quantity sometimes 
becomes very considerable, and produces death. 
These cases must be familiar to my readers under 
what is called hydrocephalus, or water in the brain. 
When the bones of the skull are firmly united, and the 
accumulation of fluid takes place suddenly, as in acute 
inflammation of the brain, pressure from within, out- 
wards and downwards, will be produced to such an 
extent as to cause insensibility, convulsions, and death. 
The brain is so squeezed against the solid and unyield- 
ing bones of the skull, that its normal functions are 
interrupted and destroyed. Death generally takes 
place in a few days. But if the accumulation of fluid 
be very slow and gradual, as in chronic hydrocephalus, 
the bones of the skull will gradually extend and ac- 
commodate themselves to the condition of the parts 
within : the whole head will enlarge to an enormous 
extent. Dr David Monro reports the case of a girl, 
six years of age, whose head measured twenty-eight 
inches in circumference ; and Dr Bright had a patient, 
aged thirty, whose head, after death, was found to con- 
tain about eight pints of fluid. 

In chronic hydrocephalus, the efl'usion of fluid is so 



432 PHRENOLOGY. 

gradual, and the changes which occur in the condition 
of the skull are so slow and so uniform, that the 
functions of the brain are not always interfered with 
as much as a person might at first sight expect. The 
condition of the brain in these cases was at one time 
involved in mystery. It was even supposed that the 
substance of the brain was removed by absorption. 
No person appeared to be able to throw any light on 
the subject until Gall came on the stage. Previous to 
the year 1804, Dr Gall met a woman, fifty-four years 
of age, who had water on the brain, and who, at the 
same time, was as intelligent as most people in her 
position in life. As he was then aware that the brain 
was the organ of the mind, he knew that the brain 
could not be destroyed whilst the mind was in fair 
operation. The case, however, could not be properly 
explained in accordance with the views which were 
then held regarding the anatomical structure of the 
brain ; and he consequently at once set about a course 
of dissections in order to throw light on the subject. 
He soon discovered that the brain, in place of being 
removed by absorption, was unfolded in such a manner 
that it became a sort of bag for containing the fluid. 
Instead of being lost, the parts were just packed in a 
different manner, and placed in a different position. 
This did not, of necessity, destroy their functions. It 
might have been supposed that a great discovery of 
this description would have been thankfully received, 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 433 

althougli made by the founder of Phrenology, but it 
was not so. Gall's discovery was warmly opposed by 
the greatest anatomists of that day, such as Tiede- 
mann, Eudolphi, Walter, Ackermann, and Soemmering. 
'' I have tried," says Eudolphi, '' all the manipulations 
indicated by Gall, in order to unfold the brain, and I 
have always found that this cannot be effected but by 
severely lacerating it, and that the convolutions are 
never unfolded in a regular and natural manner, as he 
pretends." " Those," remarks Gall, " who cannot suc- 
ceed in this artificial operation, certainly have a right 
to say, that they have not been able to convince them- 
selves of this by their own dexterity ; but to hear 
them, one would believe that they accused me of im^ 
posture and charlatanism. But I invite Soemmering, 
Rudolphi, Blainville, &c. &c., to come and see with 
their own eyes this unfolding, which is so inconceiv- 
able, and, in the course of half an hour, they will be 
enabled to do it with as much promptitude as my- 
self. . . . Let Rudolphi recollect the dictum of Yicq- 
d'Azyr, that, in order to see well in anatomy, some- 
thing more is requisite than two eyes." There is no 
man so blind as the man who does not wish to see. 

At first. Gall's discovery was denied as a fact. In 
the course of time, however, it was found that denial 
was of no use, as the fact was plainly demonstrated by 
the manipulations of Gall and Spurzheim. What, 

then, was to be done ? The Phrenologist must be 

2 E 



434 PHEENOLOGY. 

kept down, and his credit handed over to another ! 
, " The opinion/' says Dr Bostock, " that in those cases 
of hydrocephalus where the skull allows of the exten- 
sion of the size of the head, and the consequent for- 
mation of a large central cavity, the substance of the 
brain is not actually removed, but has only the rela- 
tive situation of its parts changed, was maintained by 
Sir Everard Home, probably before it had been pro- 
mulgated by the continental anatomists. In the 
Phil. Trans, for 1814, after giving an account of a case 
in which the head had acquired an enormous size, 
while the mental faculties were but little impaired, he 
adds, ' The cerebrum is made up of thin convolutions 
of medullary and cortical substance, surrounding the 
two lateral ventricles, which are unfolded when the 
cavities of these ventricles are enlarged, and in this 
unfolded state the functions belonging to this part of 
the organ can be carried on.' This affords us another 
instance in which Sir Everard Home has anticipated 
Drs Gall and Spurzheim in what has been supposed 
among the most novel of their doctrines." — {BostocFs 
Physiology.) Now, in this case, I deliberately charge 
Sir Everard Home with the grossest plagiarism, as he 
has usurped Dr Gall's discovery without the slightest 
acknowledgment ; and I charge Dr Bostock with 
either unjustifiable ignorance as an author, or wilful 
misrepresentation. Such conduct is unjustifiable in the 
extreme, and should reduce any man from the rank of a 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 435 

philosopher. On Dr Bostock's own showing, Sir Everard 
Home's opinion was pubhshed only in the year 1814. 
How, then, could this anticipate a discovery of Gall's 
which was made ten years previously ? Gall had made 
his dissections, and announced his discovery of the 
unfolding of the brain in hydrocephalus, previous to his 
connexion with Dr Spurzheim, which commenced in the 
year 1804 ; and the true structure of the convolutions, 
and their connexion with the rest of the cerebral mass, 
were fully described in the joint Memoir which was pre- 
sented by Gall and Spurzheim to the French Institute 
in the year 1808. — (Spurzheim's Anatomy of the Brain.) 
We thus see that the discovery was made by Gall 
previous to 1804, and was brought to perfection by 
Spurzheim before 1808, when the joint Memoir by 
Gall and Spurzheim was presented to the French In- 
stitute. Nay, more, the connexion between Gall and 
Spurzheim ceased in the year 1813. So that, take it 
as you will, the assertion of Bostock regarding Sir 
Everard Home's statement in 1814 as anticipating 
Gall's discovery of the unfolding of the brain, has not 
one particle of foundation in truth. The conduct of 
Sir Everard Home and Dr Bostock is perfectly scan- 
dalous. It is really marvellous, the treatment which 
Gall's discovery of the unfolding of the convolutions 
has received. It was first denied altogether as a fact 
by Rudolphi, Soemmering, Walter, and Tiedemann ; 
when this would not stand the test of practical ex- 



436 PHRENOLOGY. 

perience, Home and Bostock made a direct effort to 
rob Gall of his glory ; later still, that plan will not 
answer, and a different one must be adopted by Sir 
Thomas Watson, who, in the article on hydrocephalus 
in the first vol. of his great work on the Practice of 
Physic, adopts, as a settled point, all the opinions 
promulgated by Gall in this matter, whilst he ex- 
cludes Gall's name as carefully from his pages as if 
it would be a sin to mention it. Such is the treat- 
ment received by Phrenologists. 

The brain is composed of two substances differing 
in colour and consistence. — (See Plates 1 and 2.) The 
one is called the cortical, outer, or cineritious layer ; 
and the other is called the medullary substance. The 
medullary substance forms the chief bulk of the brain. 
It is tolerably firm and fibrous in its texture, and is of 
a whitish colour. This medullary substance is covered 
over by the cortical, outer, or cineritious layer. The 
cortical layer is of a gray, ashy, or cineritious colour, 
and is of a soft or pulpy consistence. Ruysch, Vieus- 
sens, Haller, Walter, Ackermann, and many others, 
have imagined that this layer was composed altogether 
of blood-vessels ; but Soemmering, and more recent ob- 
servers, have demonstrated that, in addition to a 
minute net-work of blood-vessels, it contains true 
nervous matter. — {Spurzheim.) The opinions which 
have been held regarding the functions of this cineri- 
tious matter have been as varied as those which pre- 



THE BEAIN AXD SKULL. 437 

vailed in relation to its ultimajte structure. Descartes 
and his followers supposed that it secreted an ima- 
ginary, subtle fluid, which they called animal spirits, 
and this idea gained support from the researches of 
Malpighi, who thought that he detected a glandular 
structure. The discussions which arose in the days of 
Haller on these points were almost endless ; and when 
we look back upon that period, it is truly marvellous 
how many eminent and learned men spent their time 
discussing the nature, situation, and properties of vital 
fluids, nervous spirits, and vibratory substances, which 
had no existence whatever, except in their own ima- 
ginations. " The whole," says Bostock, " is a hypo- 
thesis entirely unfounded and quite gratuitous." 
Foville maintained that the cortical substance of the 
brain was appropriated to the intellectual functions, 
and that the medullary portion was connected with 
locomotion. This view was supported by Dr Stokes 
of Dublin, who, in his Lectures on the Practice of 
Medicine, affirmed, that mental delirium is found in 
connexion with inflammation of the surface of the 
brain, but not of its centre. " This fact," he says, 
" would seem to confirm the truth of the opinion of 
the difference in function between the medullary and 
cortical parts of the brain. . . . Indeed, there can be 
no doubt that the central portions of the brain have 
functions very different from those on the surface. 
They appear more connected with another function of 



438 PHKENOLOGY. 

animal life, muscular motion and sensation." — (Eyan's 
Journal for June 1834.) An opinion somewhat diiFer- 
ent from this has been held by Carpenter, Solly, and 
others, namely, that the cineritious layer is the source 
of power, and that the medullary substance is a 
mere conductor. " If it be true," says Dr Carpenter, 
*' that the gray matter only is the source of power, and 
that the white is merely a conductor, I cannot see 
that we have any right to assume, with the Phrenolo- 
gists, that the total size of the organ affords a measure 
of its power, until it has been shown that the thick- 
ness of the cortical substance can be judged of by the 
size of the brain, or of any part of it." — (^Medical 
Gazette for Sept. 1841.) " I have come to the con- 
clusion," says Mr Solly, '^ that the peculiar power of 
the nervous system resides in the cineritious portion^ 
and that the office of the medullary is simply that of 
a conductor." — (Solly on The Brain^ p. 19.) " I be- 
lieve," remarks Mr Solly, " that I was one of the first 
to insist upon the distinct office of the cineritious and 
medullary neurine, and I felt that this was the more 
necessary, inasmuch as Gall and Spurzheim, those 
grand pioueers in nervine anatomy and physiology, 
omitted to adopt this view." — {Lancet for Jan. 28, 
1865.) The experiments of Flourens, Magendie, and 
others, seem to me to be inconsistent with this 
opinion regarding the use of the medullary substance 
of the brain. These observers have shown that irrita- 



THE BRATN AND SKULL. 439 

tion of a nerve is conducted to the muscles, and pro- 
duces contraction and pain, but no amount of irrita- 
tion, not even cutting and slicing^ of the medullary 
substance of the brain will produce either pain or 
muscular contraction ; hence it is evident that the 
medulla of the brain is not a conductor in the same 
sense in which the medullary substance of the nerve 
is a conductor. 

Such are the opinions of the Physiologists. The 
Phrenologists do not agree with them. '^ Dr Gall and 
I suppose," remarks Spurzheim, " that each nervous 
apparatus is composed of two peculiar substances, the 
pulpy and the fibrous, and that both are necessary to 
produce an instrument adequate to the performance 
of a particular function." — {Anatomy of the Brain.) 
On this view, the cineritious and medullary substances 
are both necessary to the formation of one organ ; and 
it is for this reason that the length of an organ is 
measured from the surface of the head to the orifice 
of the internal ear, which corresponds as near as pos- 
sible to the centre of the brain, at the medulla oblon- 
gata. It also results from this arrangement, that, 
although the peripheral expansion may vary consider- 
ably in different cases, all the organs exist in every 
human being who is not an idiot. The Phrenological 
development of the brain is an overwhelming argu- 
ment for the unity of the human race. As Gall has 
observed, " All human brains, if they are not naturally 



44:0 PHEENOLOGY. 

defective, exhibit the same parts and the same prin- 
cipal convolutions ; they are distinguished from each 
other only by the relative proportions of the convolu- 
tions, and by some differences in accessory convolu- 
tions. . . . Hence, as I find in the brain of the negro, 
the same parts as in that of the European, it is certain 
that they both occupy the same degree in the scale of 
the animal kingdom." All the organs which exist in 
the white man are found in the black ; but many of 
them do not occur in any of the lower animals. 
Hence, this becomes a link of separation between man 
and the inferior animals, at the same time that it 
demonstrates the unity of the human race. When 
naturalists, and comparative anatomists, adopt the 
brain as the basis of their classification of animals, 
the divisions of the animal kingdom will become cor- 
rect, but not till then. 

Let us now take a concise view of the bony case in 
which the brain is inclosed. The bones of the skull, 
which are generally flat, are composed of 
three layers, — an internal hard layer and 
an external hard layer, with a soft, spongy, 
or cellular layer between them, which 
is called the diploe. The internal and 
external layers, or tables, of the skull 
III.— FE-oNTAL ]^g pretty close to each other in every 

SINUS. 

part, except above the root of the nose, 
where they separate for some distance to form what is 




THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 441 

called the frontal sinus. — (See Plate 3.) The exist- 
ence of this sinus, or cavity, has been made a won- 
derful handle of by our opponents, who have imagined, 
or pretended to imagine, that it forms an insurmount- 
able barrier in our way, and that it is calculated to 
throw doubt, and bring discredit, on all our opinions 
and observations. In this instance, however, I think 
they are reasoning rather hastily, and cutting a little 
before the point. The organs which lie behind this 
sinus are for the purpose of observation^ and are brought 
into play at a very early period of our life. The child 
can observe long before it is capable of much reasoning, 
and the consequence is, that its observing faculties are 
capable of being studied from its very infancy ; and 
the functions, or uses, of these faculties may be dis- 
covered in childhood, when they are in more active 
exercise, perhaps, than at any other period of life. 
Now, in this case, the frontal sinus can be no obstacle 
whatever in our way, because it does not exist at all 
before the age of twelve years. For this reason, it 
can never be properly and' fairly brought forward as an 
objection to the discovery of the functions of those 
organs which lie in this locality ; but I readily admit 
that it may, in some instances, in the adult, lead us 
astray if we pronounce with too much confidence, and 
without very accurate examination, on the develop- 
ment. Whilst we keep this fact in mind, we should 
not be too much deterred by it, because in an over- 



442 PHRENOLOGY. 

whelming majority of instances we shall find that the 
appearance of the organ and its manifestations corres- 
pond, owing to the fact that the two tables of the 
skull, although separated, generally run parallel to 
each other in this locality. 

Our opponents have no right to raise this objection 
to Phrenology, because it has invariably been alluded 
to by Phrenologists themselves. " I was the first," 
says Gall, " to maintain that it was impossible for us 
to determine with exactness the development of certain 
convolutions, by the inspection of the external surface 
of the cranium. I was the first to treat in detail of 
the variations in the thickness of the cranium which 
happen in old age, in insanity, &c. I was the first who 
remarked, with extreme care, that in certain cases the 
external table of the cranium is not parallel to the 
internal one. I have called the attention of anatomists 
to all these, circumstances. What is it, then, that has 
incited Messieurs Berard and De Mont6gre to turn 
these facts into weapons against craniology'? Why 
had they not the frankness to instruct their readers 
by what means I have been enabled to remove many 
of these difficulties^ and how I have derived advantage 
from others ? Ought they not to have borne me 
•testimony, that I pursued my researches with as much 
candour as coolness ; that I considered my subject, in 
all its aspects, with impartiality." 

*' Even granting the sinus to be an insuperable 



THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 443 

obstacle in the way of ascertaining the development 
of the organs over which it is situated," says a sensible 
writer in the Phrenological Journal for 1824, "" we 
state, first, that in ordinary cases it extends only over 
three, viz., Size, Lower Individuality, and Locality ; and, 
secondly, we ask in what possible manner it can interfere 
with the other thirty or thirty-one organs, the whole 
external appearance of which it leaves as unaltered as 
if it were a sinus in the moon ? It would, we think, 
be quite as logical to talk of a snow-storm in Norway 
obstructing the high road from Edinburgh to London, 
as of a small sinus at the to]3 of the nose concealing 
the development of Benevolence, Firmness, or Venera- 
tion on the crown of the head." 

It has always appeared to me that our opponents 
are insincere, in pressing this objection against Phreno- 
logy. I have come to this conclusion from their own 
conduct. They say it is impossible to tell, with any 
degree of accuracy, the condition of the organs behind 
the frontal sinus. For argument sake, then, let us take 
them on their own showing, and what do we find ? They 
first lay down the principle, that the development in 
this locality cannot be accurately ascertained, and then, 
if they happen to find an instance where a Phrenologist 
has made a mistake regarding the condition of the 
organs here, they at once parade and trumpet it as an 
unanswerable argument for the falsity of the entire 
SQience. Is this honest ? On their own princijples, 



444 PHEENOLOGY. 

should they not expect mistakes to occur ? Nay, more, 
on the principles laid down by Phrenologists them- 
selves, they should expect mistakes to occur occasion- 
ally regarding this particular spot. Why not honestly 
and fairly make allowance, then, for these trifling and 
occasional mistakes, rather than trumpet them up as 
adverse to observations made on parts which present 
no such obstacles ? The Phrenologist asks for nothing 
but what he has a right to demand, — fair play. He 
acknowledges that difficulties may sometimes arise in 
connexion with the frontal sinus, and therefore he has 
a right to demand allowance for occasional errors at 
this locality ; but he neither looks for nor expects any 
allowance to be made concerning parts where no such 
difficulties present themselves. 

After all, the difficulties connected with the frontal 
sinus are neither very great nor very frequent. Still 
they do sometimes occur. What then are we to d' > i 
Are we to throw up the subject altogether on this ac- 
count ? Would this course be consistent with good 
sense ? Would it not be more consistent with courage, 
and true philosophy, to apply ourselves only the more 
rigorously, in order that we might find some means of 
obviating the difficulty and of removing the obstruc- 
tions which lie in our way ? It surely would, and this 
the Phrenologists have done ; and their labours have 
not been in vain. The pusillanimous efforts of their 
opponents to overturn the whole system of cerebral 



THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 44-5 

physiology by means of this sinus affair, in place of 
alarming them in any way, have only served to urge 
them onward in the observation of nature after the 
manner of all real philosophers. Indeed, in this view, 
we have a right to be obliged to Sir William Hamilton, 
of Edinburgh, for the opposition which he gave us on 
this head. I have taken the trouble of wading through 
the almost interminable letters, regarding the frontal 
sinus, which he wrote to Mr Combe and Dr Spurzheim, 
and which are published in the 4th and oth vols, of 
the Phrenological Journal. I must say I hardly ever 
read so much trash, nonsense, and reckless assertion, 
in the same bounds, in the whole course of my life. 
Sir William Hamilton may have been well enough 
suited for the reveries of metaphysics, but he was not 
adapted for practical science. An American meta- 
physician has remarked of him, that " he has not only 
swallowed down, but digested libraries ;'' it would be 
well for the honour of the Edinburgh University if 
we could say that he had added, as a condiment for 
this sort of food, a fair, careful, and honest observation 
of nature. If he had he would not have written the 
one-fiftieth of what he did regarding the preliminary 
grounds on which he and Mr Combe should appear be- 
fore an Edinburgh audience. Sir William Hamilton 
insisted on disproving the Phrenological views regard- 
ing the size of the frontal sinus, and the very frequent 
parallelism of the outer and inner tables of the skull 
at this locality, by an examination of fifty skulls be- 



446 PHRENOLOGY. 

longing to the University collection. So far so good ; 
but how was the state of the cavity between the two 
tables to be judged of ? By sawing it open of course. 
Common sense would dictate this plan ; but it would 
nob suit the anti-phrenologists. Mr Combe was to be 
permitted to open one cavity in each of three skulls ; 
and in regard to the remainder Sir William tells him 
that '' every dimension, including the depth, can easily 
be ascertained by the employment of a bit of wire." 
" I shall send you," he continues, " a supply of such 
probes.'^ Bless the mark ! Such a plan of settling a 
practical scientific question ! It may suit for the chair 
of metaphysics which was occupied by Sir William 
Hamilton ; but it would disgrace the common sense of 
a child. What now was Mr Combe to do ? Of course 
he could not agree to such ridiculous preliminaries, 
and still he was anxious not to miss the opportunity 
of discomfiting the metaphysical professor. He then 
offers a great deal too much, — he proposes to accept the 
terms if he be allowed to open a dozen of the skulls 
tahen at random from the collection of fifty in the^ 
University Museum. Even this is objected to by 
Professor Jamieson. What now ? There is a large 
collection of skulls from all parts of the world in the 
Phrenological Museum, in Clyde Street Hall, Edinburgh. 
Is Mr Combe afraid to allow these to be seen ? Cer- 
tainly not. The Phrenologist knows he has truth on 
his side, and he never quibbles. Mr Combe writes to 



THE BEAIN AND SKULL. 447 

Sir William Hamilton as follows, — " If you will honour 
me with your attendance at Clyde Street Hall, on 
Friday morning at ten, I shall saw open as many skulls 
as you may select^ carry them to the Assembly Eooms, 
and abide by the evidence they afford, both as to parallel- 
ism and the frontal snius." Nothing could be fairer 
than this ; and still Sir William Hamilton rejects it. 
Such is a specimen of the way Phrenology has invariably 
been treated by its theorising opponents. They are 
afraid to look it fair in the face. When I look over 
Sir William Hamilton's quibbling correspondence, I 
am surprised that Mr Combe and Dr Spurzheim were 
able to keep their temper with him. I cannot, how- 
ever, undertake to give even a digest of their corres- 
pondence here, as it occupies no less than one hundred 
pages of an octavo volume. In concluding this point, 
I must ask my readers what they would think of an 
anatomist who, in order to ascertain the size, shape, 
proportions, direction, and other peculiarities of the 
cavities of the chest, skull, and ear, would take Sir 
William Hamilton's grand scienti&c plan of sticking 
pins into them, in place of opening them up to view ] 
Would they not at once vote him a strait-waist- 
coat? To be sure they would. But wonderful to re- 
late, the ravings of a madman would pass for sound 
sense against Phrenology, if emanating from a Pro- 
fessor's chair 1 

The skull is covered by the skin, and one or two 



448 PHEENOLOGY. 

muscles. These muscles are so thin that they cannot 
mislead the most careless observer as to the size and 
shape of the subjacent organs in any part except in 
front of the ear, where the thick temporal muscles are 
located. The exact position and thickness of these 
temporal muscles may easily be ascertained, however, 
by placing the finger on the part where they lie, during 
the time that the individual moves the under jaw as in 
the process of mastication. 

When the brain is first capable of being examined 
after its formation, it is found to be covered merely 
by a membranous sack or bag. In the process of time 
isolated pieces of bone are deposited in this membran- 
ous bag or covering. These bony deposits gradually 
increase in size by the addition of new material, until 
they ultimately meet, and become firmly united so as 
to form one solid case of bone inclosing the brain. 
This union, however, of the bones of the skull does not 
take place until a considerable time after birth. 
This is a matter of great importance, because it teaches 
us that the size and shape of the brain are not deter- 
mined by the state of the skull ; but that the size and 
shape of the skull are governed and determined by the 
state of the brain. Although people in general are 
not aware of this fact, which was known even by Galen, 
still a little reflection might have enabled them to sus- 
pect it. It would be absurd to suppose that an im- 
portant organ like the brain could be limited in its 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 449 

growth by a covering which is merely intended for its 
protection. This would be placing the higher organ 
at the mercy of the lower. As Gall has observed, " it 
is reasonable to believe that the brain, being an object 
more essential to the end of nature than its osseous 
envelope, this last ought to yield to the developments 
of the former, as everything demonstrates that it does.' 
Could any person imagine that the size and shape of 
the body are determined by the state of the skin which 
surrounds and protects it ? Why, then, should the 
brain be under a different law of development ? 
Perhaps I may be told the skin is soft and easily 
changed, whereas the skull is hard and difficult of 
alteration. If so, I shall explain the matter. 

There are two processes continually going on in the 
animal economy. The one is performed by the ab- 
sorbing, and the other by the secreting, vessels. The 
absorbent vessels are constantly engaged in absorbing, 
sucking up, or removing those particles of matter 
which have become useless or served their purposes in 
the system ; whilst the secreting, or secerning, vessels 
are as regularly engaged in depositing, or laying down, 
new matter in the place of that which has been re- 
moved. By the never-ceasing action of these two 
sets of vessels, every part of our body is being con- 
tinually changed. If both sets of vessels are equally 
active, the size of the body will remain unchanged, but 

if one predominates over the other, in action, its effects 

2f 



450 PHRENOLOGY. 

will soon become visible. Witness, for example, the 
rapid wasting which occurs, through absorption, during 
sickness, and the equally rapid deposition which takes 
place, through secretion, on the return of health. Now, 
these vessels have the power of acting with perfect 
facility on every part of the body. They can act on 
the solid bone as well as on the tender brain. All 
substances are alike to them. In some tissues, the 
action, though not more certain, is more rapid than in 
others. This difference, however, does not depend 
upon the density or sponginess of the substance to be 
acted on, but upon the number of vessels which the 
part contains. If the part be highly vitalised by an 
abundant supply of vessels, the action is rapid ; if the 
contrary^ the action is slow. 

That absorption and deposition go on in bone as well 
as in any other part of the body, was long since proved 
by the experiments of Duhamel. He fed a number of 
animals on food containing madder. The colouring 
matter of the madder bids defiance to the powers of the 
stomach, is taken up with the nutritive portions of the 
food into the circulation of the blood, and is deposited 
by the exhalant vessels in the texture of the bones. 
When sawn across, the bones are found to be com- 
pletely coloured by the madder. This proves the ac- 
tion of the secreting vessels. After feeding fowls on 
food containing madder, for a certain time, Duhamel 
left off the madder, and killed the fowls from time to 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 451 

time, and as the period advanced from the use of the 
madder, he found the colour in the bones gradually 
becoming fainter and fainter, till it entirely disappeared. 
And this demonstrated the existence of absorbents. So 
that we see the bones of the skull are subject to the 
same laws of deposition and absorption as the rest of 
the body. Not only so, but inasmuch as their office is 
very inferior to that of tlieir noble occupant, the brain, 
they are entirely subservient to it in their proportions 
and development, in accordance with the law of the con- 
stitution that the lower organs subserve the purposes 
of those which are more essential to vitality. Many 
fact^ conspire to prove this law. In obedience to it, 
the hardest bone will absorb under the pressure of a 
blood-vessel which is essential to hfe. The hard bone 
yields rather than the soft vessel. " The effect of 
aneurismal enlargements of the artery to cause absorp- 
tion of the neighbouring tissues, upon which the 
tumour presses, is very curious. We know that even 
the solid bone," says Sir Thomas Watson, '^is removed, 
worn away, as it were, before an advancing aneurism.'^ 
— {Medical Gazette^ February 1842.) 

" To conceive," writes Professor Byroe, of America, 
^' such a tender and delicate substance as the brain 
forcing out such a hard and durable material as the 
skull at a mature age, in particular places, is almost 
argument enough to upset this anagram of a science 
(Phrenology) in its first commencement." Not so fast. 



452 PHRENOLOGY. 

Professor Byrne. Before trying to upset Phrenology, 
you would require to make yourself acquainted with 
the laws of the human constitution, and with some of 
the commonest facts which occur before your eyes. 
You would not then be so likely to exhibit your con- 
summate ignorance. As the occupant of a Professor's 
chair, you may be ignorant of the fact, which is known 
to nearly every man out of the chair, that the ^^ delicate 
substance of the brain," when filled with water, can 
''force out such a hard and durable material as the 
skull " to more than double its size in cases of hydro- 
cephalus. On the principles of this mighty opponent 
of Phrenology, the crabs, lobsters, tortoises, and all 
animals which carry their bones outside the soft 
textures, have a poor chance of increasing in growth. 
When their bones once become hard, there is an end 
to development ! Verily ! it would provoke a saint to 
have to deal with such opponents, who are ignorant of 
the very first principles of nature. In order that these 
parties may learn something of the operations of nature, 
I invite their attention to the following cases, which 
prove that the hardest bone will yield even to the 
pressure of a blood-vessel, in obedience to the law of 
the economy that the inferior organs subserve the 
purposes of the superior. " A porter, 38 years of age, 
died in the hospital at Sienna, in consequence of a sus- 
pected affection of the spinal cord. On dissection, 
an aneurismal tumour, of the size of a hen's egg, was 



THE BRAIN AND SKULL. 453 

found upon the posterior surface of the arch of the 
aorta. The bodies of the third and fourth dorsal 
vertebrae had been quite absorbed, so that the swelhng 
lay in the spinal canal." — {Medico-Chirurgical Review, 
for April 1838, p. 568.) Here the solid bones of the 
back are absorbed to give room to a tender blood- 
vessel. " When we were on the subject of aneurism,'^ 
says Professor Samuel Cooper, ^' I exhibited to you a 
specimen of aortic aneurism, which had occasioned 
such an absorption of the lateral part of the spine, that 
the medulla spinalis was exposed." — (Ryan's Medical 
and Surgical Journal, June 1834.) At the meeting of 
the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, London, 
in February 1861, Mr Toynbee laid before the mem- 
bers the morbid specimens of eighteen cases, in which, 
on dissection, he found that a soft molluscous growth 
inside the ear had caused the absorption of the petrous 
portion of the temporal bone. — {Medical Gazette, March 
1861.) Mr Toynbee says there was no caries of the 
bone, no inflammation of any kind ; that they were all 
cases of simple absorption. Now, these are very im- 
portant cases, because they prove the possibility of a 
soft mass causing absorption in a bone which is not 
only the hardest in the skull, but the hardest in the 
whole body. It is called '' petrous " from its resem- 
blance to the density of a stone. At a meeting of the 
Dublin Pathological Society, "Professor Banks ex- 
hibited a huge aneurismal tumour, springing from the 



454 PHEENOLOGY. 

arch of the aorta, which by its pressure had completely 
obliterated the sternum, and dislocated both sterno- 
clavicular articulations.'^ — (Lancet for Jan. 30, 1864.) 
I have a patient under my care at present whose case 
is perfectly identical with that of Professor Banks. 
But I think I need not multiply examples, as enough 
have been produced to prove that nature knows nothing 
of hardness, and that any bone in the body can make 
way for the accommodation of a more important or 
more vital organ. 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 

The first step, as far as the brain itself is concerned, 
towards the discovery of a person's character and 
abilities, is to ascertain the absolute or general size of 
the head ; or, in other words, the size of the whole 
brain. If the head measures only twelve or thirteen 
inches in circumference, and only eight or nine inches 
over the top, from the root of the nose to the occipital 
spine at the nape of the neck, it is invariably idiotic. 
No exception to this rule has ever been produced. 
Want of size is invariably a source of idiocy ; but it is 
not by any means the only source of idiocy. The law 
holds good on the one side, though not on the other. 
A head of the dimensions referred to must of necessity 
be idiotic ; but every idiot must not of necessity have 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BEAIN. 455 



a small head, because there are many reasons besides 
want of size for a head 
being idiotic. When 
the circumference am- 
ounts to twenty-two 
inches, and the line over 
the top to fourteen 
inches, the head is con- 
sidered to be the stand- 
ard or average size in 
the male ; and any- 
thing beyond or below iv.-the idiot. 
this will make the head large or small, as the case may 
be ; so that w^e have every variety from the idiotic up 






-NAPOLEON. 



VI, — THE HINDOO. 



to the largest size. A mere glance at Plates 4, 5, 
and 6, which represent the casts of the idiot, Napoleon 
and the Hindoo, will be quite sufficient to impress any 



456 PHRENOLOGY. 

person with an idea of the importance of size. In 
fact, it is difficult to imagine that any rational being 
could look at these plates without feeling the neces- 
sity of practically examining into the truth of Phren- 
ology. A mere child would recognise the difference 
in these cases. There is not one of my readers who 
will mistake the idiot for a man of genius, or 
Napoleon for an idiot. This shows that to a certain 
extent all are practical Phrenologists. I defy any man 
of sense to believe that the plates of the idiot and 
Hindoo exhibit the same power of intellect as that of 
Napoleon. If he were ever so willing, he could not 
believe it . It is only wild theorists like Dugald Stewart, 
Lord Jeffrey, and Dr Eoget, that could reason them- 
selves so far out of their senses as to imagine such a 
thing possible. The idea could never be entertained 
by any man under the guidance of common sense. 
In the cast of the idiot, there is defect in proportion 
as well as want of size ; but the fault of the Hindoo is 
chiefly in size. The proportion of the different regions 
in the Hindoo cast is so even as to make a nicely 
balanced head. Its great fault is want of absolute size, 
and consequently want of general force of character. 
Hence the cause of the subjugation of the Hindoos 
by the British. This plate (6) presents a fair specimen 
of the average Hindoo skull, and it is plain to be seen 
that the whole head is not much larger than Napoleon's 
forehead. A nation of this description has no chance 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIIS'. 457 

of competing with the British. I may mention here 
that the plates of Napoleon, the Hindoo, Scott, Carson, 
Sheridan, Linn, Templeton, and the Carib, are all en- 
graved from photographs which were very carefully 
taken, by Mr Mack of Coleraine, from busts placed in a 
line before the camera in such a manner as to preserve 
their exact relative size. For this reason, though 
smaller than natural, they can all well be compared 
with each other on points having reference to size. 
They are all in natural proportion to each other. The 
plate of Napoleon is not perfect any farther back than 
the ear and the slight elevation on the top of the fore- 
head straight above the ear. 

Having estimated the general, or absolute size of the 
head, we must next proceed to the observation of its 
relative proportions, — that is, we must ascertain the 
relation in size which the anterior, middle, and pos- 
terior parts of the head bear to each other. This is a 
point of overwhelming importance, as it is on the rela- 
tive development which these three parts bear to each 
other that the predominance of the intellectual, moral, 
or animal portion of the character depends. Two men 
may have the same quantity of brain, by weight or 
measure, and yet possess very different, even opposite, 
characters, in consequence of an extra development of 
one or other of the regions referred to. For this 
reason, it is very necessary to make a close examina- 
tion and comparison of the different regions. Those 



458 PHUENOLOGY. 

who wish to become properly acquainted with this 
part of my subject, would do well to procure one of the 
ordinary marked Phrenological busts, and then paint 
the regions of the animal propensities, the moral sen- 
timents, the observing faculties, and the reflecting 
organs of different colours. They will then be able to 
see the regions at a glance ; and by a little practice 
they will gain considerable facility in the observation 
of real heads or casts. It is hardly possible for the 
beginner to become acquainted with either the regions 
or individual organs without having recourse to the 
use of the bust. Each region must be examined as to 
its length, breadth, and depth. An inspection in front, 
above, behind, or on one side, may show the breadth 
and depth, and the length is to be judged of by the dis- 
tance from the surface of the brain to the root of the 
organs at the medulla oblongata, which lies (See Plate 
2) in the centre of the head opposite the orifice of 
the ear. 

The anterior lobe of the brain is the seat of the in- 
tellectual organs. Its size may be estimated by draw- 
ing a line from the organ of Constructiveness, in front 
of the ear, to the organ of Benevolence , at the top of 
the forehead, after the fashion which I have adopted 
in the plates of Scott, Templeton, and the Carib. All 
that lies in front of this line is included in the intel- 
lectual organs. We should measure the height from 
the root of the nose ; the breadth from side to side ; 



ABSOLUTE AND EELATIVE SIZE OF BHAIN. 459 

and the length from the front to the ear. We can 
form a good idea of this region by comparing the plates 
of Sir Walter Scott and Napoleon with those of the 




VII. — SIR WALTER SCOTT. 



VIII. — TEMPLETON. 



idiot, the New Hollander, and the Carib. The differ- 
ence of development in these cases is so very marked 
that I need not dwell on it, as it must be perceptible 
to the commonest observer. Again, the intellectual 




IX. — THE CARIB. 



X. — NEW HOLLANDER. 



organs are divided into the organs of perception and 
the organs of reflection. The organs of perception, or 
observation, which take cognisance of all that exists 



460 rHRENOLOGY. 

around us in the world, lie in the lowest region of this 
part of the brain, or that part which corresponds with 
the eyebrows ; and the organs of reflection, or reason- 
ing, occupy the space which intervenes between the 
eyebrows and the line I have drawn on the forehead 
of Scott, Templeton, and the Carib. It is not only im- 
portant to observe the size of the whole intellectual 
region, but it is also essential that we estimate the 
relation which the observing and reflecting portions of 
this region bear to each other. All these points must 
be attended to. In some instances, the upper region, 
containing the reflecting organs, is most prominent in 
development and juts out beyond the eyebrows; in 
other cases the two regions are nearly alike, and the 
forehead is perpendicular ; whilst in a third class, the 
eyebrows project the farthest forward. Some might 
imagine that it would be better to have the upper, or 
reflecting, region in excess of development, but this is 
a great mistake. Parties with that sort of development 
are generally dreamy and prosy and devoid of practical 
ability ; whereas those of the opposite extreme are 
practical and sharp but very shallow. I do not fancy 
an extreme on either side, nor yet a development that 
is quite perpendicular. When we remember that nearly 
all the knowledge we possess is obtained through obser- 
vation, we must see how necessary it is to have the 
lower region of the forehead, or the region of observa- 
tion, very largely developed. I could hardly imagine a 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 461 

man of great ability to be defective in this part. The 
larger it is, the greater the ability for the acquisition 
of knowledge. The region of the eyebrows can hardly 
be too much developed. Still, as one part cannot do 
the duty of another, a large brow, such as we see in 
the plate of the Carib, will not do without a good 
development of the upper region also. There should 
be great capacity for taking in knowledge, through the 
lower region, and then plenty of power for making use 
of that knowledge through a full development of the 
upper, or reflecting, region. Both regions ought to be 
well developed, but the lower should be slightly in 
excess of the upper. The plates of Templeton, the 
New Hollander, and the Carib show a tolerably large 
development of the lower region, with a very shallow, 
scanty, and n^iiserable development of the upper. This 
conformation gives quickness of observation with- 
out the power of deep reflection. But the plate of 
Napoleon exhibits a beautiful development of both 
regions — the lower in the nicest possible excess of the 
upper — and this combines immense practical ability 
with great depth of thought. Napoleon's forehead is 
really beautiful, as far as the powers of observation 
and reflection are concerned, in the eyes of a Phreno- 
logist. In those cases where the forehead recedes very 
much, we must be careful to observe the exact cause 
of it, otherwise we are certain to fall into great mis- 
takes. If the brows project far in front of the eyes, the 



462 



PHRENOLOGY. 



forehead can afford to recede, and yet possess sufficient 
reflecting power, provided the upper region also passes 
the perpendicular of the eyes ; but if the forehead 
recedes in such a way as to place the upper region 
behind the perpendicular of the eyes, as may be seen 
in the plates of the Carib, the New Hollander, and the 
idiot, then the reflecting portion is decidedly defective. 
The posterior lobes of the brain, and the cerebellum, 
are the seat of the animal propensities. The size of 
this part may be judged of by a line passing through 
the head from ear to ear. The space which lies behind 
this line is occupied by the animal propensities. The 
organs included in this division also extend upwards 
and forwards over the ear. Their situation is toler- 
ably well marked out by the lower circular lines on the 
plates of Scott, Templeton, and the Carib. This region 




':;iiiiillll\l!i''.h;i\ 



M^.. 




XT. — LINN. XII.— EEV. DR CARSON. 

is largely developed in Sheridan, Templeton, the Carib, 
and the New Hollander ; and for its side view, their 
plates may be contrasted with that of Sir Walter 
Scott. It is also very important to examine this region 
as to its breadth, which can be done by an inspec- 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 163 

tion above and behind. For this purpose, I have 
drawn a line from each organ of CausaHty in the 
forehead, right over the top of the head backwards, in 
the plates of Linn the parricide, and my father. The 
space outside these lines will show the breadth of the 




XIII. — LINX, 



XIV. — EEV. DR CARSON. 



animal propensities. The top view of Dr Carson^s 
head exhibits considerable length from before back- 
wards in proportion to breadth ; and the back view 
will show that the head was high in proportion to its 
breadth ; or, in other words, that the reflecting and 
moral regions overbalanced the animal propensities ; 
whereas, the reverse of all this holds good in the case 
of Linn. The posterior view of Linn's head exhibits 
immense brain substance between the ears, and the 
superior aspect shows the portion outside the lines to 
be so largely developed that the brain, which is alto- 
gether very large, is rounded like a bullet. 



464 



PHRENOLOGY. 



The top of the head is the seat of the moral and 
imaginative faculties. The size of this region may be 
known by drawing a line from Causality in the fore- 
head round Cautiousness on the side of the head, as 
may be seen on the plates of Scott, Templeton, and 
the Carib. When the brain is well developed, and 
completely filled out, above the level of this line, as in 
the case of Scott, the sentiments will be strong in pro- 
portion ; but when this region is flat, shallow, or 
narrow and contracted, as in the case of Templeton, 
the Carib, or New Hollander, the moral and imagina- 
tive faculties will be exceedingly weak. 

As the power of a part bears a direct proportion to 
its size, other things being equal, the necessity of 
attending to the relative development of the different 
regions which I have been describing must be abun- 
dantly evident. A glance 




at the plate of Sheridan's 
head will show that all 
the regions are so nearly 
balanced that his character 
must have been influenced 
very much by education, 
moral training, and the 
description of society m 
which he might happen to be placed for the time 
being. He was nearly equally disposed in all direc- 
tions, and hence was liable to go with the tide of his 




I 



XV. — SHEEIDAN. 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BEAIN. 4:65 

circumstances. This is not by any means a desirable 

character. In the plate of the Carib, we see that the 

space above the black line, which is occupied by the 

moral sentiments, is exceedingly small in comparison 

with the great mass of animal region below the line. 

It is even worse in the cast than it looks in the plate, 

as a front view demonstrates great contraction of the 

moral organs. The animal propensities predominate 

here to a great extent over the moral faculties. The 

observing organs, which occupy the eyebrows, are in 

good development, but the reflecting region is most 

miserable. This is a bad type of head in every 

respect. The moral faculties are extremely deficient, 

the reflecting organs are next to nothing, and the 

animal propensities overtop everything else. The 

New Hollander also belongs to a very low class. The 

reflecting region is so narrow, low, and far behind the 

eyes, that it could hardly be any worse than it is. The 

reasoning powers are almost idiotic. The Hindoo 

(Plate 6) presents a great contrast to the Carib and 

New Hollander. It is considerably smaller than 

either of them, but it is much more elevated in its 

type. There is a great want of force or general power, 

owing to want of general size ; but the balance of 

the regions is in beautiful proportion. Leaving size 

out of the question, this is a remarkably nice head. 

The observing and reflecting organs are well developed, 

the moral region is well thrown up and rounded, and 

2 G 



466 



PHRENOLOGY. 



rises gradually from before backwards, so as to present 
the greatest elevation at the seat of Conscientiousness 
and Firmness, which lies at the top of the head directly 
above the ear. This sort of development in the moral 
region is highly important. In short, the profile of 
this head is truly beautiful, if it had sufficient size to 




XV^I. — VITELLIUS. 



give general power or force of character. The head of 
Vitellius, the Eoman Emperor, is a regular contrast to 
the Hindoo. He had great absolute size, immense 
breadth between the ears, with a top as flat as a 
flounder. There was great force of character, but the 
moral faculties were wretched in the extreme. His 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 467 

head was so broad, so low, and so flat, that his appear- 
ance is disgusting in the eyes of a Phrenologist. He 
was a regular monster of iniquity^ and this character is 
in direct conformity with his Phrenological develop- 
ment. Templeton's head (Plate 8) is also one of a very 
bad type. It is even a dreadful specimen of the class 
of murderers to which he belonged. The observing 
region is fair enough, but the reflecting and moral 
regions are extremely deficient when compared with 
the animal, as may be seen by the position of the dark 
lines. The whole animal region is very large in every 
position in which it can be viewed, whilst the head is 
low and the top nearly quite flat. It is even worse in 
the bust than it looks in the plate. In place of rising, 
like the Hindoo's, from before backwards in the upper 
or moral region, it is as high at the top of the fore- 
head as it is at the crown of the head. This is an 
extremely bad head, whether we consider the regions 
or the individual organs composing the regions. The 
head of Sir Walter Scott (Plate 7) is so peculiar that I 
imagine it is quite unique. At least, I have never 
seen one like it. It was so high that it would almost 
reach the top of his hat. This head alone ought to be 
sufficient to attract universal attention to Phrenology. 
It is in perfect accordance with his extraordinary 
powers as a novelist. His works and his head combine 
to prove that he was the prince of novelists ; his 
writings and his head are both unique ; no person ever 



468 PHRENOLOGY. 

equalled him in his own province ; no man ever saw a 
head exactly similar to his ; — what facts for Phren- 
ology ! 

In examining an organ or region, we must not in all 
cases expect an elevation, or bump as it is called by 
way of ridicule, as such a form of development oc- 
curs only where one organ predominates greatly over 
those in its vicinity. Such a thing may sometimes 
be found, but in general we find a rounded elevation 
of a considerable space arising from a full develop- 
ment of several organs in contiguity. Before attempt- 
ing to give an opinion of a person's character, every 
organ in the head must be examined, in order to get 
a fair estimate of the power of each individual faculty, 
as well as of the effect which one organ is capable of 
producing on another. Each organ has its own pecu- 
liar sphere of action, but besides this it may some- 
times act in unison with, or contrary to, other organs, 
as circumstances may arise. The largest organs will 
usually take the lead of others, and form a prominent 
outline in the character. Our opponents pretend 
that the balancing of antagonistic organs is a fatal 
objection to the truth of the science, whereas they 
should just look upon it as an evidence of the correct- 
ness and beauty of the science. Every person who 
is in the least degree conversant with the philosophy 
of man, must be aware that there are conflicting ele- 
ments in his nature somewhere ; and if Phrenology 



ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE OF BRAIN. 469 

did not admit them it would only prove itself untrue. 
It would then be as inconsistent with nature as is 
the philosophy of those creatures who raise such 
ignorant objections against it. Moreover, a judicious 
Phrenologist will always weigh the matter well, and 
balance the organs, in his own mind, before telling 
the character ; and when he has given his opinion he 
will not ask to get out of it in any way. To estimate 
the exact power of each organ, and the effect which 
one has upon another, is the most difficult part of 
the science, and there are not very many people suffi- 
ciently instructed in it, nor are all men able to learn 
it. It requires a particular development of brain 
to make a good Phrenologist. The person must have 
the power of holding up, at the same time, every 
organ of the, head to his own mind's eye, in order to 
balance them all, and estimate their several powers 
separately and conjointly, in unison and antagonism. 
In addition to all this, he must have a thorough apti- 
tude for the observation and study of human nature 
as it is to be seen in daily life. It is not such an easy 
matter to become a good practical Phrenologist as 
some parties imagine. I have not the slightest doubt 
that grievous mistakes in the development of char- 
acter are occasionally made ; but it should never be 
forgotten that it is directly contrary to reason and 
good sense to set down the mistakes and blunders of 
either ignorant or incompetent observers as argu- 



470 PHRENOLOGY. 

ments against the truth of any science. If the prin- 
ciples of our opponents were adopted, we would 
require to obtain inspired, and consequently, infallible 
observers before we would be in a position to adopt 
or reject any subject connected with natural science. 
There is no end to the inconsistencies of those who 
are determined to oppose truth. Phrenology is in a 
position to stand as rigid a scrutiny as any other 
science, based on human observation, that ever existed. 
No true philosopher would ask for more than this. 
If he did so, he would place himself beyond the pale 
of common sense. 



THE END. 



BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 



Second Edition, 3s. 6d. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 18 MURDER LEGALIZED. 

BY JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D, 

London : Houlston & Wright. 



REVIEWS. 
<'Dr Carson with great propriety lays stress on the uncertainty of 
Circumstantial Evidence, of which he cites many never-to-be-forgotten 
illustrations. The proofs, as the reader of Dr Carson's book may see, 
are frightfully abundant, that circumstances may be misinterpreted 
and that their testimony may be insufiEicient, even when no one in 
Court doubts its meaniDg. This we admit to be in itself a very power- 
ful argument. . . . All who know his previous productions will be 
prepared to find in this much keenness of perception and directness in 
stating propositions, as well as acumen and force in defending them. 
In all these characteristics, Dr Carson is very like his eminent father, 
and our readers need know no more than this to induce them to give 
their attention to this or any other production from his pen." — The 
Freeman, London. 

"Dr Carson's work deserves a careful perusal because of the import- 
ance of the subject and the ability with which it is treated." — Dewy 
Sentinel. 

"Everything written by the learned and excellent author bears the 
impress of ability, reflective thought, and of extensive information." — 
Derry Standard. 

"To those who desire to know all that can be said against Capital 
Punishment, we recommend this pungent volume. It ought to be 
read by all the friends of humanity, order, and religion. The chapter 
on the Scriptural Argument is especially able and trenchant. The 
work is written by one who evidently writes from earnest conviction, 
and with a sincere regard for the authority of Scripture. Eifty-two 
pages are taken up with an exhaustive and able criticism of the Sabbath 
question, and this digression from the subject of the work is of immense 
value Dr Carson's style is eminently lucid. He is as clear, concise, 
and forcible as his able father. When we find it impossible to agree 
with him, we are amazed at his forcible manner of expression. The 
opponents of Capital Punishment will do well to circulate this well got- 
up book by hundreds of thousands. We predict it will pass through 
many editions."— ^ai^itsi Messenger, London. 

"The author of a book with this strong title, to make good his as- 
sertion, must be a man of singular ability, and have very decided views 
on the subject. Dr Carson did not essay a task too difiicult for his ex- 
alted talents as a convincing writer on any subject to which lie brings 
the force of his powerful intellect. He takes up one after another all 
the texts of Scripture which have been relied on as sanctioning the 
punishment of death, and with the hand of a master, while shirking no 



responsibility as a believer in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, 
he shows with the clearness of a sunbeam, that the genius and spirit of 
Christianity are totally opposed to the death penalty. He, however, 
does not content himself with the most luminous exposition of the 
meaning of the exact words used by the sacred writers ; but with all the 
acumen of the most accomplished logician, he takes up the premises 
relied on by his opponents, and proves to a demonstration that the 
conclusions to which they arrive have been arrived at by wilfully ignoring 
facts, or by importing matters into the discussion which have nothing 
in the world to do with it." — Ballymoney Free Press. 

"In the chapter on the Scriptural Argument, he assails the stronghold 
which his opponents regard as impregnable, and drives them before him 
step by step until they have not a foot to stand upon. He gives quarter 
to none, and never asks it. He has not only the courage to challenge 
the best men in the rival camp, but he has the ability to vanquish them, 
and tell them the reason why. The question of Capital Punishment is 
one of extraordinary difl&culty ; but it has never yet had one who 
grappled with it so thoroughly as Dr Carson. Not the least of the great 
merits of his book consists in this, that it is plain fact and cogent argu- 
ment from beginning to end— so lucidly stated, in clear language, that 
the conclusions of the writer at once appeal to, and convince, the under- 
standing of the reader." — Coleraine Chronicle. 

"We commend this work to the careful perusal of the philanthropist 
and the statesman. It embodies a large amount of powerful reasoning, 
and all but exhausts the subject." — Western Star, Ballinasloe. 

"One of their great advocates, Dr Carson, has published an able and 
thoughtful work on the subject." — Belfast News-Letter. 

"We feel sure that this work cannot fail to serve the noble end for 
which it was written." — Tyrone Constitution. 

"If our readers desire a fair, candid, shrewd, comprehensive, and 
scriptural investigation of this subject, they can have it in Dr Carson's 
book. If this does not oreatly assist in making some alteration in our 
criminal arrangements, it certainly ought to. It is full of evidence and 
argument unanswerable. Dr Carson is no superficial writer, no enthu- 
siast, no novice ; he turns his attention to one of the greatest national 
and social subjects, and pursues his argument with an amount of ability, 
patience, and research, which reflect the highest credit upon the mind 
and motive of the author." — The Earthen Vessel, London. 

"If the enemy's works are not carried by storm, it is not for want of 
the most brilliant powers of logic and ratiocination on the part of Dr 
Carson. We sincerely thank him for this manly, logical, and outspoken 
defence of what he sincerely believes to be the truth." — The Gospel 
Herald, London. 

"Dr Carson has subjected the question to a most exhaustive treat- 
ment. No important point is overlooked : but the chapter on the 
Scriptural Argument is by far the most important of all. We commend 
Dr Carson's admirable work to all who desire to master this great public 
question. It is certainly the ablest defence of the abolition of Capital 
Punishment that has yet been published. We can give no higher praise, 
and to give less would be unjust." — Primitive Church Magazine, 
London. 



Second Edition, 3s. 6d. 

THE FORM OF THE HORSE, 

AS IT LIES OPEN TO THE INSPECTION OF THE ORDINARY 
OBSERVER. 

BY JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D. 
SiMPKiN, Marshall, & Co., London; Menzies, Edinburgh. 



REVIEWS. 

" This work is evidently written by one practically conversant with 
the subject upon which he treats, and he records his knowledge, not 
'because he has to say something,' but really 'because he has some- 
thing to say.' He gives very judicious and explicit suggestions by 
which a purchaser may be guided in the selection of a horse, and in 
reference to every structural point of the animal." — Saunders' News- 
Letter, Dublin. 

"It is seldom that authors understate the qualities of their own la- 
bours, and yet this error of delicacy has been committed by Dr Carson 
when selecting the title of his book. We have no hesitation in com- 
mending it to universal acceptance as one of the very best manuals of 
useful knowledge in the department to which it belongs." — Londonderry 
Standard. 

"To breeders especially do we strongly recommend a perusal of his 
hints. These are most valuable upon every point on which this class of 
readers would like to be informed. There is a degeneracy in the breed 
of Irish horses of late years, which attention to the directions given in 
this work would completely recover." — Dublin Evening Packet. 

" Our knowledge of horse-flesh is too limited to enable us to describe 
this volume as it deserves, for the title would hardly lead one to suppose 
that Dr Carson was giving a treatise on the horse, his management, 
health, and breeding, besides the animal's description; yet he has done 
so, and in a most pleasing manner too." — The Bookseller, London. 

"Its author is a scholar, a man of science, a perspicuous writer, a 
sound reasoner, and a shrewd observer." — The Morning Advertiser, 
London. 



2 



' ' We have often wondered that a book of this kind has not been pre- 
viously written. It is exactly what we consider the heau ideal of a work 
on this subject. There is not a line in it which the most simple man 
cannot understand, or which any but a very profound man could have 
written. The unpretending pages which Dr Carson has here given to 
the world are the fruit of a vast amount of reading, research, and obser- 
vation." — Dublin University Magazine. 

*' A work of great merit. Practical knowledge of every part treated 
characterises the easy popular style in which the subjects are handled. 
He discusses the subject in a very different manner to any other modern 
English author. He is so far in advance of long-prevailing teaching that 
we recommend his views as worthy of the attention of veterinary prac- 
titioners. Not only do we hail the work before us as a useful manual 
for popular reading, but we should be glad to see it in the hands of 
veterinary students, that they might avail themselves, in practice, of 
the sound precepts it inculcates." — Edinburgh Veterinary Review^ July 
1861. 

'' Dr Carson conclusively establishes that so far back as March 1848 
he published in the Londonderry Standard, that in the progression of 
the horse the heel is laid first to the ground. This, the substance of Mr 
Lupton's paper in March 1858, is a proposition which Dr Carson rightly 
claims to have first propounded. Dr Carson's book is one of the soundest, 
clearest, and most useful we have ever perused. It should be read and 
inwardly digested by every one interested in the management of horses." 
■^Edinburgh Veterinary Review, February 1862. 

"Many of our modern writers are meagre and inaccurate when con- 
trasted with the Earl of Pembroke ; and this is indeed the case with all, 
one alone excepted, who have written on this subject. Dr Carson has 
brought to bear on his labours a well-trained mind, a knowledge of phy- 
siology, the aptitude for horsemanship peculiar to many Saxons and 
Celts, and an ardent love of his subject. It is not to be wondered at, 
then, if he is a good representative in the 19th century of that class of 
men whose type in the 18th was the noble earl just mentioned." — The 
Scottish Farmer. 

*' It is a book which should be attentively studied and carefully kept 
for reference." — Kilkenny Moderator. 

" There are few topics upon which practical information is more neces- 
sary ; and Dr Carson offers valuable suggestions to guide a purchaser in 
the selection of a horse." — Dublin Evening Post. 

"The information contained in the book now before us is vast, and 
given with that regard to minuteness and clearness which characterises 
all the literary efforts which have as yet come from the learned author's 
pen." — Coleraine Chronicle. 



" It is concise and simple, and yet full of information." — Belfast Neivs- 
Letter. 

*' Dr Carson has produced a book which will be highly appreciated by 
all who take an interest in the most useful of our domestic animals." — 
Banner of Ulster. 

'' The valuable anatomical descriptions the volume contains, the vast 
amount of practical information to be found in its pages, and the popular 
and entertaining style in which it is written, all combine to render it an 
important manual on the subject on which it treats." — Dublin Daily 
Express. 

"We consider a good practical treatise on the subject of the greatest 
importance, and such our readers will find in the work of Dr Carson." — 
Cork Examiner. 

" It alTords a variety of information, which may be found interesting 
even by those who have no intentions of speculating in horse-flesh."— 
Athenceum. 

" Many a man has been * taken in' in a purchase, who, if he had read 
the 'Form of the Horse,' might have escaped the deception." — Kilkenny 
Journal. 

" We ask those who are not adepts in horse-flesh to read this volume, 
containing a ' simple review of the points of the horse ;' simple, inas- 
much as they are certainly put together in a style comprehensible to 
every one ; important, as they involve questions of serious consequences 
to a great portion of the community." — Dublin Agricultural Review. 

" Those who wish to purchase or breed horses have full information 
which will guide them, and enable them to judge correctly of the horse's 
development and peculiarities." — Derry Sentinel. 

"We can unhesitatingly recommend 'The Form of the Horse' as an 
able and comprehensive tresitise."— Bally money Herald. 

" This work is well written, and cannot fail to be useful to all who are 
interested in that noble animal, the horse." — The Christian World, 
London. 

" This is the second edition of a very useful book. All the topics are 
handled in a very lucid and intelligible style." — BelVs Life. 

" Dr Carson's work has now become an authoritative text-book upon 
a topic concerning which a vast number of people are more or less in- 
terested. The present edition may be well recommended, as illustrating 
in a manner perfectly intelligible to every class of the community a very 
intricate and treacherous subject." — The Lancet. 



Twelfth Thousand. 

HBEE8IES OF THE PLYMOUTH BEETHKEN, 

BY JAMES C. L. CARSON, M.D. 

London : Houlston & Weight. 

This Edition contains sections on the Mullerites, the Newtonites, and 
the Darbyites ; the Law a rule of Life ; the Righteousness of Christ ; 
the Recantation of Mr Mackintosh ; and a Christian Spirit in Contro- 
versy ; together with an Answer to Mr Darby's Reply to Dr Carson. 



REVIEWS. 

''Dr Carson, like his illustrious father, seems in his element as a 
controversialist. He strikes home, and neither gives nor asks for mercy. 
Those who wish to hear what can be said against this sect will find it 
briefly stated in this pamphlet." — Christian Cabinet, London, 

" Anything from the prolific pen of the learned writer must command 
attention, and we have ourselves perused his pamphlet with much in- 
terest." — Western Star, Ballinasloe. 

"Dr Carson seems to have inherited not a little of the intellectual 
vigour of his revered father, and we have no doubt but many who had a 
leaning to the Plymouth Brethren will thank him for this exposure of 
their doctrinal errors." — Glasgow Examiner. 

" Dr Carson has done his work with signal ability and logical acute- 
ness, and has brought to light doctrines held and promulgated by these 
Plymouth missionaries, which cannot fail to startle the religious public 
in this country. Dr Carson's masterly exposure of these dogmas cannot 
be too widely circulated." — Londonderry Standard. 

"The subject has been discussed with the author's wonted power; 
and we can most cordially commend his pamphlet to such as desire to 
have clearer conceptions of the peculiarities of Plymouth theology." — 
Coleraine Chronicle. 

" Dr Carson very ably exposes and confutes the mistakes of the Ply- 
mouth sect." — The Patriot, London. 

"Dr Carson, whose able pamphlet we strongly recommend, has 
noticed and exposed this error and several others with singular ability. 
Rewrites, in some respects, like his able and upright father, whose 
memory will long be embalmed in the hearts of truth-loving and out- 
spoken saints." — The Voice of Truth. 

" The work published by Dr Carson effectually exposes the real 
character of the Plymouthians." — London Morning Advertiser. 



" "We wish to recommend once more, before closing the present article, 
the slashing pamphlet of Dr Carson. We again commend this lively 
pamphlet to the reader." — London Record. 

" A combination of the most startling disclosures, conclusive refuta- 
tions, and trenchant attacks." — Baptist Magazine. 

" This is an able pamphlet. The heresies loudly called for an ex- 
posure, and this Dr Carson has given them, with the skill and power 
of one who is thoroughly master of his subject." — Primitive Church 
Magazine. 

*' Dr Carson has conferred a boon of great value on the whole of the 
Christian world by his manly and able exposure of the Plymouth 
heresies. We thank him for his able defence of truth and for his manly 
exposure of error. We pray that the mantle of his sainted father may 
ever rest upon his shoulders. He has done his work well." — Letter in 
The Earthen Vessel. 

" Dr Carson is a thorough 'chip of the old block.' He has the in- 
tensely quick perception of his illustrious sire, and therefore is no very 
pleasant critic where all is not thoroughly sound. No one will doubt 
what we say who will read this searching pamphlet." — Baptist Mes- 
senger. 

"This publication is worthy of attentive perusal, and those who are 
disturbed by the pretentious sayings and doings of the ' Brethren' 
would do well to promote its circulation as widely as possible." — The 
Gospel Herald. 

' ' We would strongly advise those who wish to understand the Ply- 
mouth principles to procure this vigorous pamphlet by Dr Carson." — 
The Bulwark, Edinburgh. 

<' Of this pamphlet we shall only say, that we wish it had been longer. 
So far as it goes it is most excellent. We are much indebted to Dr 
Carson for it." — Quarterly Journal of Prophecy. 

"Dr Carson's withering exposures not only of their errors, but of their 
Jesuitical morality, cannot fail to produce a ' sensation ' in the reUgious 
world." — Berry Standard. 

"The peculiarities of Plymouth Brethrenism are thoroughly sifted, 
Scripturally tested, and faithfully exposed. As ten thousand copies 
have already been sold, it is evident that its intrinsic value is duly ap- 
preciated. " — Baptist Messenger. 

" I had no idea that they held such heresies until I read this book by 
Dr Carson, who is a son of the great Dr Carson of Tubbermore, Ireland, 
and who appears to be a son worthy of such a father — one on whom the 
mantle of the departed ' Elijah ' has fallen. This work proves its 
author to be a man of no ordinary abilities — a man competent for the 
task he has therein undertaken."— 77ie Canadian Baptist, Toronto, 
Canada. 



6 

" They have once and again been combated, but never, we believe, 
with the same success as on the present occasion. Dr Carson is a 
powerful friend and a very formidable adversary. He is largely en- 
dowed with the intellect, the penetration, we had almost said intuition, 
and the convincing logic of his admirable father, the far-famed Dr 
Carson. The volume presents an analytical view of the whole subject. 
As a piece of polemical theology, we attach exceeding great importance 
to it ; it is really a book of thought far beyond what might be supposed. 
A better shilling's worth of sound divinity and convincing logic is no- 
where to be found. By making a physician of the author, his parents 
have spoiled a first-rate divine ; however, even in that capacity he is 
not wholly lost."— The British Standard, edited by the Rev. Dr 
Campbell. 



Price 5s. each Volume, 

THE W0EK8 OF THE LATE EEV. ALEXANDEE 
CAESON, LL.D. 

London : Houlston & Wright. Edinburgh : Elliot. 
Dublin : Carson. 

Each Volume is complete in itself, is sold separately, and may be had 
by order through any Bookseller. 

Vol. 1. MlSCELLANEOtTS TREATISES. 

Vol. 2. Tkeatises on the Roman and Unitarian Controversies. 

Vol. 3. The Inspiration of the Scriptures. 

Vol. 4. Church Government. 

Vol. 5. Scripture and Science. 

Vol. 6. The Providence of God. 



REVIEWS. 

''Not in this countiy only, but in England, Scotland, and America, 
and throughout the whole of Christendom, has been due homage ren- 
dered to the genius and success with which he demonstrated that ' every 
word of God is pure,' and that every page of Revelation is radiant with 
Divine Majesty and glory." — Banner of Ulster. 

" Dr Carson has long been well known as a first-rate scholar, a sound 
philosopher, an irresistible reasoner, and a profound theologian. His 
works shall be his monument, — a monument of transcendent genius, of 
imperishable greatness, evincing to posterity that, with the strictest 
propriety, he has been designated one of the first Biblical critics of the 
nineteenth centuvj. "Scotsman. 



'< One of the first Biblical critics of the age. The great and almost 
singular excellencies of this most extraordinary man, are his clear 
philosophical conceptions, and his fearless philosophical spirit : even 
the German exegetical writers are only scholars. The true critic is 
made up of the scholar and philosopher combined." — Christian Free- 
tnan. 

"These treatises are distinguished by deep and original thought, 
earnest piety, extensive knowledge, perfect command, yet great sim- 
plicity of language, and withal, such a spirit of boldness and earnest- 
ness in stating and vindicating truth, as is quite refreshing in these 
days of hesitating statement and lukewarm advocacy." — Achill Mis- 
sionary Herald. 

"His pen has furnished some of the finest specimens of critical 
acumen, well applied, that are to be found in our own or in any other 
language. His exposure of the absurdities of the Popish doctrine of 
Transubstantiation is a masterpiece. On the subject of Unitarianism, 
too, none has dared to assail his positions." — Christian Freeman. 

" As a profound and accurate thinker, an able metaphysician, a clear 
reasoner, a deep theologian, Dr Carson can stand the ground against 
any rivalship." — Scottish Guardian. 

" In the knowledge of the philosophy of language he is far in advance 
of the present age, and, with respect to metaphysical acuteness and 
powers of reasoning, he has been called the ' Jonathan Edwards of the 
nineteenth century.' His character, as a philosophic theologian, and a 
profound, original, independent thinker, stands in the very highest rank ; 
and he is only justly designated when called one of the most philosophic 
reasoners of the present age.'' — Orthodox Presdyterian. 

" Dr Carson's works will survive to justify the high character he bore 
as an accomplished scholar, an acute and deep philologist, and a Chris- 
tian philosopher." — London Record. 

" For clear analysis, philosophical acumen, and argumentative power, 
Dr Carson, on all hands, is acknowledged to have been a master in 
Israel. The subject of this (third) volume is one in which the opinions 
of learned and conscientious men have been somewhat various. Dr 
Carson finds his principle of interpretation in one axiomatic utterance 
of the Word itself—' All Scripture is given by inspiration of Grod.' Scrip- 
ture, the writing itself, the very word, is inspired. Lifting this, in the 
obvious sense in which he takes it, he meets all comers and defies their 
assaults. Nay, he advances with the seeming intrepidity of conscious 
truth, and bears down his assailants with apparent Samsonian ease. 
Independently of the importance of the question at issue, the aspect 
and attitude of this theological athlete, as he walks round the circle of 
his assailants and shows the metal of his energies, affords an exhibition 
of dialectic power and skill deeply interesting. No one, who is able to 
appreciate what argumentation really is, can rise from the perusal of 



8 



this volume without a vivid impression of the author's ability, and a 
lively conviction that his position, logically; is not easily assailed. The 
section that stands first — 'Characteristics of the Style of Scripture, as 
Evidential of its Inspiration ' — is a masterly discussion of this important 
topic. This section alone would have stamped its author as worthy to 
be enrolled with the most enlightened defenders of the truth of revealed 
Te\igioii..''-r-Glasgow Commonwealth. 

"It is perfectly needless in us to recommend these essays to the 
Christian public of the North of Ireland, where the name of Alexander 
Carson is a household word among evangelical Protestants." — Belfast 
News-letter. 

"Every page lives with interest; there is nothing dry, nothing 
tedious. Its style flows transparent and free as the mountain stream." 
— Primitive Church Magazine. 

"Dr Carson's style is clear, concise, and forcible. His arguments 
display close and accurate reasoning. The scholar as well as the man 
of genius appears in every page." — Belfast Weekly Mail. 

"A charming book, and we could wish it were in every Christian 
family." — Lutheran Observer, America. 

"A book of vigorous thought, worthy of careful study." — Religious 
Herald, America. 

"Would do honour to any pen that ever wrote." — Troy Budget, 
America. 

" Other men of far inferior calibre have had their honours heaped 
upon them ; but do I speak more than the words of truth and soberness 
when I say that here is a man who has advanced every subject on which 
h'5 has written, and who, in some respects, is in advance of the age in 
which he lives— here is a man, a mere shred of whose capital has made 
some men of small means great, and some really great men greater still 
— himself, all the while, more unassuming than his fellows. Among his 
excellencies, I have always rated high his impartiality and singleness of 
purpose. One is never in doubt that his object is truth, and that his 
determination is to follow evidence whithersoever it leads, untrammelled 
by system or sect. The freedom from bias and independent honesty in 
argument ever evinced by this writer, are qualities which we have 
greatly to desiderate in many controversialists of the present day." — 
A. K. Miller, Esq. 

" He is a skilful and powerful advocate of all fundamental Scripture 
truths, and such a champion as the present age imperatively demands." 
— Sword and Trowel. 

" Dr Carson was unquestionably one of the greatest Christian philoso- 
phers of the age." — Baptist Messenger. 

"Dr Carson appears as a profound theologian, a learned philologist, 
and an accomplished rhetorician. Such a combination of the highest 
spiritual and intellectual culture is indeed rare, and would render a man 
an ornament and a credit to any Church." — Achill Herald. 









-^^ 



V .. ^ ' " >t ^^. 



^^ c^^ 











Oo 



c 











^ ^^^ 



^fi 




^;:^ v^ 









.0 o 







■„% 



^^. 



'?^. ^o', . ^ jO 



-0- 



v-^ 






T< 



L> "J -^ 



^^' 



V 










^ 




sV^ 



^<^^ 



^ ^ 












^".0^ 



V''- 



-4^ 









'. "^. .^^ 



1^ 



'^^^^^ 



'^^ ^^' 



\ * o 

-J 









x- 



-^" X 



^ 






. ^'c^ 



^^ ,^^^' 



-- 0^ 



%/^ 



^^^ 



,^^^' 



\ 



'^, 



-^^ ^<^^ 



